Sitting of 18 January 1983

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords]
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    The Grove Maternity Hospital, Barton-on-Sea
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of the Grove maternity hospital Barton-on-Sea.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): In March 1981, after considering the case put forward for the closure of the Grove maternity hospital, my predecessor decided that the hospital should remain open and be given the opportunity to develop. The Southampton and South-West Hampshire health authority is now carrying out a review of the situation on the Grove's future, but no conclusion has yet been reached.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply and apologise for continuing to press the case for the Grove hospital. However, is he satisfied that the health authority has done what it was told to do by his predecessor with regard to investment and use of facilities? With regard to the future of the Grove, can he confirm that there is no question that he will become involved until those obligations have been clearly carried out?
    Mr. Clarke: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject, and he has brought a deputation to see me about the matter. At the moment the health authority is reviewing the future and considering the case, but has reached no conclusions. I will not be involved unless for some reason the authority again decides to propose closure. Before anything was put to me, I should need to be satisfied that the spirit of my predecessor's original decision had been complied with in every way.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What would be the effect on the maternity unit at the Southampton general hospital of keeping the Grove open?
    Mr. Clarke: Those are matters that should be left to the health authority. I rely on its judgment in looking at maternity services in the area as a whole, which is what it is doing now. I hope that it will be able to draw up a clear future programme for maternity services that will meet all the queries of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell).

    Kidney Complaints (West Midlands)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the lack of treatment for sufferers of kidney complaints in the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have received a total of 19 representations, of which 11 have been from hon. Members.
    Mr. Roberts: Is it not deplorable that purely because of the lack of resources many people in the west midlands and elsewhere will die from kidney disease this year, although there are tried and tested methods of treatment? Will the Minister consider the suggestion that I have made on a number of occasions, that a computer bank system for kidney donors would greatly increase the efficiency of the system?
    Mr. Clarke: I accept that one reason for the deficiencies is the unfortunate shortage of donor kidneys. A television programme two years ago did a great deal of damage by reducing the public and medical response to the demand for kidneys. We examine all possible ways to increase supplies of donors. We recently put a new kidney donor card into all provisional driving licences, and we are looking at other ways.
    I replied yesterday on the hon. Member's particular point. We look at every suggestion with interest, but there are practical problems with computer donor banks that have to be resolved to make sure that they provide the best value for money in tackling the problem.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Has the Minister considered the possibility of contracting-in for donors of live organs, by computer?
    Mr. Clarke: This is a highly controversial and difficult problem, with people holding a wide variety of views about the position of relatives of donors, if a tragic death occurs. We are looking at several propositions and we are actively encouraging as many people as possible to carry donor cards, as this greatly facilitates the taking of kidneys after a tragedy. It has also been suggested that we introduce kidney donor co-ordinators to assist doctors in providing the necessary organs. All the ideas are looked at, but the hon. Member's proposal is controversial.

    One-parent Benefit
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of those entitled to receive one-parent benefit are receiving it.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Our latest estimate is that one-parent benefit is being paid to about 70 per cent. of those who stand to gain by claiming the benefit.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the figure represents an improvement over the position last year, it is still rather disappointing? Does he propose to take any further steps to try to raise the figure?
    Mr. Newton: I would not wholly agree that the figure is as disappointing as my hon. Friend implies. It represents an increase from only about 60 per cent. when the Government took office. That is a substantial achievement. We are considering further steps to try to increase take-up still further.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I welcome the improvement. Has the Department received any information from the 1981 census that helps to establish that there are more single parents and therefore a genuine need for a continuing review of the uptake?
    Mr. Newton: It is interesting that preliminary findings for 1981 from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the number of one-parent families may be slightly lower than that on which we based our take-up estimate. In that case the take-up estimate would rise, but I cannot be absolutely certain at the moment.
    Mr. Alton: Given the relatively low level of benefit available to single parents, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for tax concessions to be made available to single parents who have to hire child minders?
    Mr. Newton: This matter has been discussed in the House on a number of occasions. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will register the fact that the point has been raised again.
    Mr. John: The Minister says that he is not disappointed because take-up has increased by 10 per cent. Does he realise that £25 million remains unclaimed by people among whom there are a higher proportion of those on the poverty line? Is he not convinced that further efforts to increase the take-up are desirable?
    Mr. Newton: I have explained that we are considering a further effort. I should like to see the £25 million taken up. However, I do not wish the House to under-estimate the achievement in getting the figure up from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. This is recognised, I am happy to say, by the National Council for One Parent Families.

    Greenfield Report (Prescribing)
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now publish the Greenfield report on effective prescribing.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Yes, Sir, shortly.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that what is required now is action? Is he not aware that even the pharmaceutical industry concedes that at least £50 million would be saved by implementing this report, which was produced for him last February? Is he aware that it would also help to stop the soap powder style promotion of drugs,
    156
    which all hon. Members saw documented so well on the "Panorama" programme last night? Will the right hon. Gentleman, having published the report, act upon it to make these savings rather than seek to increase the prescription charge by lop, which would not be necessary if he made this change?
    Mr. Fowler: Not all hon. Members have the leisure of the hon. Gentleman to watch television. His supplementary question would have been more appropriate if the Government were not publishing the report. That is what he asks and that is what I am doing. I would therefore have expected him to welcome it.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the Secretary of State realise that every Minister since 1950 has urged the use of the British National Formulary or the British Pharmacopoeia in general prescribing? Will he not bring forward legislation to allow clinical freedom for doctors to refuse substitutes but to ignore the brand name percentage that applies at present?
    Mr. Fowler: The first stage is to publish the report. The committee specifically did not examine the contribution that the pharmaceutical industry makes either to the discovery and development of new medicines or to the economy generally. I shall want to hold consultations before considering further action.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not clear that the majority of the thousands of drugs used every year in this country are me-too drugs, that they are not the result of original research and development? Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he publishes the report, consult not only the pharmaceutical companies but the medical profession, which knows of the contribution that could be made to the National Health Service?
    Mr. Fowler: We shall consult the medical profession as well as the pharmaceutical industry. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree with me that it is important to consult the pharmaceutical industry, which is responsible for net exports worth about £570 million. The industry also employs 70,000 people. That is important. I accept what the hon. Lady says about the medical profession being consulted.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State ask, at the same time, why there is such a disparity between the prices of the same drugs in this country and on the Continent?
    Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Lady must know, we have a pharmaceutical price regulation scheme which was accepted by the previous Government, as was the promotional cost scheme. We are prepared to look at these matters.

    Community Nurses (Cars)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to provide cars for community nurses who need them to visit their patients, as recommended in the Acheson report on primary care.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): This is one of a number of recommendations in the Acheson report about the living and working conditions of community nurses. There is already provision in a national agreement of the general Whitley council for the allocation of Crown cars

    157
    to staff who need them for their work. Only the health authority locally is in a position to assess the need for cars to be allocated and how effective this would be in aiding the recruitment and retention of nursing staff. The alternative is the payment of mileage allowances to staff using their own cars.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that it is precisely the difficulties of that system that are highlighted in the Acheson report? Is he aware that the report shows that London community nurses are at a disadvantage over transport compared with nurses in what are characteristically described in the report as country areas? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a national levelling-up of provision, primarily in the interests of patients?
    Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman must realise that this is part of the series of recommendations in the Acheson report. We are still considering the action that is necessary. We announced some time ago an additional sum of money for particular purposes. The hon. Gentleman must also realise that there is virtually no pressure from staff for the provision of Crown cars. Most staff prefer to use their own cars because of the contribution towards standing costs within the mileage allowances.
    Mr. Terry Davis: As the Minister has referred to the feelings of staff, does he appreciate that there is a widespread sense of injustice over the need for community nurses or health visitors to provide their own cars to do their job? If he is not willing to provide money for community nurses and health visitors to have cars provided by their employers, will he talk to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury about the injustice of taxing the mileage allowances?
    Mr. Finsberg: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Ealing-Hammersmith Hounslow Family Practitioner Committee
    Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of the Minister of State, Official Report, 30 November, c. 135, whether an official of his Department telephoned the administrator of Ealing-Hammersmith Houslow family practitioner committee during the past six months and inquired about the political affiliations of some members of the family practitioner committee.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I now find that such inquiries were in fact made in connection with letters which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) wished to send to members of this and other committees. The inquiries concerned only those committee members who are also members of local authorities. I have investigated the matter and I can assure the hon. Member that there was no motive for the inquiry other than to assist my hon. Friend in adopting a personal approach in his letters to the members concerned.
    Mr. Leighton: That seems to be a denial of what was stated previously. It seems that there may be some chance of the Minister coming clean to the House this afternoon. Will he explain what possible justification exists for making inquiries about the political affiliations of members of these committees? Is it not a disgrace?
    Mr. Clarke: My previous reply said that I was not aware of these approaches and that I had not authorised any. That remains the case. It is also true of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead. My hon. Friend wished to write to members of five FPCs about a problem with which he is dealing over offices at Wembley. An official decided that it would be helpful in writing personal letters if he knew the political affiliations of the elected local councillors of the FPCs.
    Mr. John Evans: Why?
    Mr. Clarke: Rather than look up the political affiliations of these councillors, which is publicly available in a book, the official decided to ring up the office and inquire about the political affiliations. Once Ministers discovered that, the inquiries were, of course, ended.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can we all know what their political affiliations were? As the Minister has the information, will he publish it in the Official Report?
    Mr. Clarke: The Greater London council already fulfils that service for us. One can buy a document which gives London election results together with the political affiliations of every councillor, including those who serve on FPCs. Our official decided to engage in the cost of a telephone call rather than pay £7 to the Greater London council. Either method is open to the hon. Gentleman and anyone else.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: What was the difference in the text of the letters that made it necessary for the official to know which letter to send to which councillor?
    Mr. Clarke: At that stage my hon. friend had not sent any of the letters. The intention was that he could vary his manner of address according to their party, if he so wished. Each Minister and each Member of Parliament follows his own practice. In correspondence I refer to more of my hon. Friends as "Yours ever" than I do to my opponents. It is entirely up to my hon. Friend what form of address he adopts.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement of the future of the death grant.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): We have not yet completed our consideration of the future of the death grant following public response to the consultative document. I shall make a statement as soon as this is complete.
    Mr. Strang: Is it not already clear that all the proposals in the Government's consultative document are unacceptable to pensioners' organisations? Will the Government press ahead and provide a decent increase in the death grant so that old people need no longer live in fear of being unable to afford a decent burial?
    Mr. Rossi: It is also perfectly clear that the resources do not exist to pay a substantially increased death grant to rich and poor alike. If I had that kind of money available, I should use it for other priorities.
    Mr. Durant: Will my hon. Friend look at the problem of funeral expenses facing widows whose husbands are on

    159
    long-term sickness benefit for a considerable time and then die? It causes great difficulty and hardship, and the policy in this regard seems to be confused.
    Mr. Rossi: It had been our intention, as a result of the consultative document, to redirect resources to the area of greatest need. Unfortunately, we did not receive sufficient public support for that approach. Therefore, we have to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Foster: Does the Minister recall saying on 31 March that he looked forward to
    "a quick and favourable response to … the consultative document".—[Official Report, 30 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 175.]
    Was not the response predominantly unfavourable? Does not the fact that we have not yet had any proposals suggest that the Government have decided to drop the means-testing of the death grant this side of the general election?
    Mr. Rossi: Fifty five per cent. of those who replied were not in favour of any of the proposals in the consultative document. All the same, a number of people replied in favour of one or other of the options. It is regrettable that we do not have public support to put resources where they are really needed and, because we do not have that support, we are having to consider the matter de novo.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is not my hon. Friend confusing public support with the expression of opinion from a sizeable number of people who could have been expected in the first place to take the line that they did? Has not the time come for the Government to grasp the nettle and pay a sizeably increased death grant to those who need it? Is it not clear that this is a case where selective use of the public social services is highly desirable?
    Mr. Rossi: It can equally be said that because only 630 responses were received to the consultative document there is not a great deal of public interest in the matter anyway. That is perfectly arguable, when one considers the millions of people who are affected by this matter. Of course the Government have to come to a conclusion, and I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. John: How many of the 630 responses were from representative bodies that represent many more than one individual response?
    Mr. Rossi: Some were from representative bodies on both sides. For example, the ex-service organisations very much supported the proposals. I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman an accurate figure, but I shall certainly give it to him in writing, if that is what he wishes.

    Tobacco Advertising
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that the code of practice for tobacco advertising makes adequate provision for advertisements contained in magazines given away free.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that High Life magazine, the in-flight magazine of British Airways, carries cigarette advertising with no Government health warning? Even if the company can dodge the Government code of practice, because of certain terms in the code, does it not have a moral responsibility, as one of our big
    160
    national organisations, to ensure that that advertising carries health warnings? Will the Minister make sure that health warnings are included in future?
    Mr. Finsberg: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The present arrangements for the Advertising Standards Authority and the new voluntary agreement specifically are not meant for magazines such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Such publications are designed basically for passengers who are not in this country. The advertisements are aimed basically at duty-free sales. Exactly like our predecessors, we do not intend to move on this matter.
    Mr. Farr: Does my hon. Friend agree that the limit of bullying the tobacco industry had just about been reached, and that if Government pressure continues to be applied to the tobacco industry there is a real risk of the industry reaching virtual extinction, with the loss of many thousands of jobs at home and abroad?
    Mr. Finsberg: In replying to my hon. Friend, I must make clear the appalling dangers that people run if they smoke. I think that that is accepted on all sides. The voluntary agreement that we were able to negotiate on this occasion is a substantial improvement on those that went before, and, in my opinion, the co-operation that we receive from the industry shows that it understands its responsibilities very well.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Minister seen the grim figures published by ASH last week, which show that because of smoking 8,213 Scots will die and that a further 15,774 Scots will be admitted to hospital during the current year? In view of those grim figures, does the Minister accept that the time has come to do something more effective to discourage this expensive form of suicide?
    Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman should not assume that a ban on advertising will reduce the amount of smoking. Finland, which banned smoking advertising in 1977, now finds that cigarette consumption is rising, whereas here it is declining.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend explain one thing? I accept that many things that human beings do to themselves are not very good for them, but why is it necessary to take these steps for cigarettes, when apparently it is not necessary for drinking alcohol or sniffing glue?
    Mr. Finsberg: The difference is that there is a danger in smoking cigarettes, however few one smokes. There is no danger in sensible drinking.

    National Health Service (Pay)
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had concerning the creation of a pay review body for the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with the Health Service unions concerning the pay dispute; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir William van Straubenezeeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he proposes any early meeting with the health services committee of the Trades Union Congress to discuss health workers' pay.
    Mr. Fowler: Following the ballot of the Royal College of Nursing and the decision by the TUC health services committee to resume negotiations on the basis of the two-year settlement offered by the Government, agreements covering the period to 31 March 1984 have now been concluded in most of the NHS Whitley councils.
    Settlements for the remaining staff groups are expected to be agreed in the very near future. Normal working has now been resumed throughout the Health Service. Consultations will begin shortly on the establishment of the new review body for nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine. I hope that discussions with representatives of other Health Service staff will begin shortly to consider new arrangements for determining their pay in the longer term.
    Mr. Hoyle: When will the Secretary of State announce the setting up of a body to cover staff other than the nurses of whom he spoke and those associated with them? Will that body contain a structure that will enable the management and trade unions to establish acceptable pay and conditions for those very deserving staff?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not envisage a body such as the review body to be set up for the other staff groups. However, I envisage the start of discussions with the Health Service unions as soon as possible in an effort to get new and better arrangements for the longer term.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that 3 million working days were lost, compared with the 600,000 that were lost during the winter of discontent, as a direct result of his inability to settle the dispute sooner? What responsibility does he accept for the increased waiting lists?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely reject what the hon. Gentleman says. We have achieved a fair settlement and not the surrender over which the previous Government presided. My regret is that industrial action continued for so long when a settlement was available much earlier. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to ascribe responsibility, I suggest that he considers the responsibility of the Labour Opposition, who at no stage condemned industrial action in the Health Service.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend be careful to ensure that the new body does not turn into another Clegg commission? In comparing salaries, will he ensure that it is remembered that in the public service there is very great security compared with that in the private sector, where there are risks and strains and often redundancies?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the nurses' review body recognises the special position of nurses and other professional groups which do not take industrial action. It is right to recognise their position and that is what the review body is intended to do.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The review body may not be independent enough, because it will take account, presumably, of the views of Conservative Ministers in fixing wage rates. Are we to learn that there will be a split between SENs and SRNs? Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he should even offer other parts of the profession terms inferior to those offered by a review body?
    Mr. Fowler: It has been made clear to the review body that we are consulting on how many and on what groups
    162
    will be contained within its considerations. It has been clear from the beginning that there will be no question of the review body covering, for example, ancillary workers, administrative workers and clerical workers. We have made our position clear.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Why?
    Mr. Fowler: The giving of evidence to the review body will be like giving evidence to the doctors and dentists review body. The Government will give evidence to the review body and the review body will consider it.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: But why is the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Jill Knight.
    Mrs. Knight: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the other strike—in social security offices, which recently terminated in Birmingham and in the Oxford area?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's supplementary question stems from the main question. However, she will be aware that the strike to which she has referred has come to an end, which I welcome.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Why has the right hon. Gentleman arbitrarily excluded entire sections of the NHS? That is not sensible and it can lead only to even more aggravation.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady is being ridiculous. She has never advocated a review body for the whole of the Health Service. I have made it clear from the beginning that the review body recognises the special position of nurses, who do not take industrial action and who have never—certainly not under the previous Government—had any satisfactory system of determining pay. There is a background in the general labour market against which comparisons can be made with ancillary and administration staff and others. I think that the hon. Lady has a dud point.

    Supplementary Benefit (Application Form)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding the size and complexity of the new form for application for social security benefit.
    Mr. Newton: About a dozen representations from local authorities, bodies providing advice services or representing workers, and individuals, were made in the six weeks prior to the form's introduction on 6 December 1982. The hon. Gentleman has, of course, followed up the representations that he made at that time.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that far more representations are coming to individual Members of Parliament than the number to which he has referred? Is this not the result of the form-filling that is required? I think that the form contains 104 questions. This is a deterrent, because many of those who are called upon to answer the questions set out in the form are already depressed by the position in which they find themselves. Does the Minister accept that this position, and the new form, are the result of the Government's economic policies, which are driving hundreds of thousands into over-crowded DHSS offices? Due to the overcrowding,

    163
    the staff have to give claimants a form to complete so that they will leave the offices instead of remaining in them. Is this not the fact?
    Mr. Newton: No. Our purpose in introducing the form was to try to improve rather than damage the administration of the social security system, not least to ensure that the unemployed who claim supplementary benefit do have to go to two offices instead of one. The form helps also in rural areas, where there were particular difficulties. The number of questions is related to the information that is required—whether on a form or by interview—to assess a claim for supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister say whether, at this early date, any special problems have arisen from one of the very last questions on the form, which asks the recipient whether he or she is a registered blind person? Is that the sort of question that should be left until the end of such a form, or the sort of question that should be on the form in the first place?
    Mr. Newton: The form makes it clear that anyone who experiences difficulties, including blind persons and those who have language problems, will find help available from the staff at the offices. I am not aware that any problems have shown up in the monitoring exercise. If they do, we shall change the form.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I really want to ask a supplementary question to the next question, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall try to remember that.

    Retirement Age
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to introduce retirement for men at the age of 60 years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rossi: In its report on the age of retirement the Social Services Committee has put forward proposals for phased transition over 10 years towards a scheme of flexible retirement between age 60 and 65 for both men and women. I am currently examining these proposals and the Government response will be published shortly.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that if the Government have any serious intention of reducing the massive unemployment totals they will do so not only by reflating the economy, which is important, but by progressing towards a shorter working week and a shorter working life? If the Government can find £2 billion to spend on the Falklands for 1,500 people—some say £3 billion—and if they can spend £10 billion on Trident, why cannot they spend a few billion pounds to achieve retirement at 60 for men, so that many of the youngsters who want a job will be given one?
    Mr. Rossi: A change in the state pension age must be regarded as a long-term change for which a great deal of preparation must be made. It is not one that can be fixed only in accordance with short-term economic considerations. The Government have extended the job release scheme because they consider it to be a more cost-effective way of reducing unemployment. We have also ensured
    164
    that the long-term rate of supplementary benefit is now available to men of over 60 who were on low incomes and who have been unemployed for a year or more.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend accept that I thoroughly agree with his long-term aim of flexible retirement for both men and women? Will he agree also that it is crucial that we keep in step with our colleagues in the other European countries so that we are not caught at a competitive disadvantage?
    Mr. Cryer: Retire.
    Mr. Rossi: Clearly that is a factor that will have to be taken into account. However, my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot anticipate the formal response that the Government will make to the Committee in due course.

    General Practitioner Statistics (London)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of people living in London are not registered with a general practitioner.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: This information is not routinely available. A recent survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys suggests that 5 per cent. of people living in inner London are not registered with a general medical practitioner under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Dubs: Is it not the case that in London a larger proportion of people are not registered with a doctor than in other parts of the country? Is this not due to the reasons that are given in the Acheson report, which suggest that in London doctors are older, that premises are less satisfactory and that there are more single practices? Does the Minister think that some action should be taken to implement this section of the Acheson report?
    Mr. Finsberg: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Professor Acheson's study group took the view that a non-registration rate of 5 per cent. or less could be regarded as insignificant. The survey that I have quoted shows that no special remedial action is needed.
    Mr. George Cunningham: In view of the disproportionate number of elderly doctors in the inner city areas and the number of doctors who want semi-retirement by having shorter lists, will the Minister restore the encouragements previously in existence for setting up new health centres?
    Mr. Finsberg: I am prepared to consider that matter, but the hon. Gentleman ought to know that of the 35 medical practice areas in inner London, 34 are classified as being well or adequately doctored, so the problem is, at worst, patchy.

    Treatment Methods and Centres of Excellence
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration is given to the central funding of new methods of treatment and of regional centres of excellence.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: New methods of treatment are normally funded by individual health authorities from the funds made available each year to them. Where a service involves substantial expenditure and is of national interest, arrangements may exceptionally be made for central funding.
    Mr. Miller: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. May I ask about the new method of kidney treatment that is being developed in Birmingham, which has fallen on the charge of the finances of the district health authority, which is unable to sustain it, and, similarly, about the centre for neurosurgery at Smethwick, which has suffered with regard to grants for the same reason, compared with Sheffield, for example?
    Mr. Clarke: The need for renal treatment is widespread and must be handled on a regional basis. The West Midlands regional health authority is giving high priority to its renal services. It has been financing a new transplant unit at Stoke and new dialysis services at Coventry, for example. It has had to put a cash limit on a service in Birmingham, but overall the region is spending more money than before on renal services and is treating more patients. It intends to continue to do so. The future of the new unit at Sandwell will be looked at by the region in the first place, which is now consulting on its regional services. If it comes to us with a proposition, we shall look at it with interest.
    Mr. Ashley: Is it not disgraceful that patients are denied the benefits of the new treatment developed at the centres of excellence simply because central funding is not available and those centres cannot afford the cost themselves? Can the Minister help?
    Mr. Clarke: As I have just explained, central and regional funding for those services has been expanded rapidly. Some £2 million a year more is being spent in the west midlands on renal services than was the case three or four years ago. There has been restraint on one centre providing one form of treatment in Birmingham, which was outstripping its budget by far, but the general picture in the region is that more money is being spent on services and more patients are being treated. I am assured by the region that it is setting itself higher targets.
    Mr. Eastham: While the Minister is considering the funding of those centres of excellence, may I draw to his attention the fact that in Manchester we have numerous hospitals of excellence, such as Christie's, and those dealing with plastic and neurosurgery? Is he aware that a burden is being placed on the social workers of the city and that while 93 per cent. of patients attending Christie's cancer hospital are from outside Manchester, Manchester ratepayers have paid £1½ million to support the social workers?
    Mr. Clarke: When it comes to funding the hospital service, which is the responsibility of the Government, we compensate health authorities for the cost of treating patients who come from outside their district and immediate locality. With regard to funds for the service as a whole, the latest public spending round produced an extra £80 million on top of previously published plans for the Health Service, which will allow for real growth in services next year.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly make an announcement about the distribution of that extra money to each and every health authority.

    Overseas Visitors (Hospital Treatment)
    Mr. Tilleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cost of administering charges for hospital treatment of overseas visitors since 1 October.
    Mr. Fowler: This information is not available.
    Mr. Tilley: Is the Minister aware that first impressions suggest that the Opposition's predictions are proving correct and the new system is wasting the efforts of hospital staff and administrators, adding to the administrative costs, confusing and inconveniencing patients and adding hardly anything in terms of increased revenue? How soon will the Minister conduct a review to see whether that is correct? If that is correct, will he give a pledge here and now that he will withdraw the new system?
    Mr. Fowler: The scheme has been operating for only three months. It would be silly to come to firm conclusions now. There is absolutely no evidence of extra staff being taken on. I have no reason to doubt the original findings of the working party, which concluded, before the setting up of the scheme, that the administrative costs would be minimal.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Is it not both common sense and good business practice to ensure that the cost of administering charges is less than the revenue collected? What is the Minister afraid of?
    Mr. Fowler: The Minister is not afraid of anything. If the hon. Gentleman wants to swap common sense, the general principle that we are applying is this. When we go to the United States or Japan, we have to pay charges and we have to insure. The Government say that there is no reason why visitors who come from the United States to this country should not also have to pay charges.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a diamond jubilee reception for the National Association of Pension Funds.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is evidence that the atomic tests that took place in Maralinga in the south Pacific in the 1950s led to the deaths of some of our service men from cancer? Does she not agree that simply making available service men's records is insufficient and that what is required is a public inquiry and an assurance that compensation will be given to the victims and their relatives?
    The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Defence has announced that it will conduct a health study of all personnel who were serving in connection with those tests in Australia and the south Pacific. That is a survey of about 15,000 personnel to see what the effects have been. That is the best way to go about this problem.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: On wider nuclear questions, will the Prime Minister recognise that many people in this country do not believe that unilateralism would provide either for the proper defence of this country or be conducive to the peace of the world, but none the less they want serious disarmament talks? Will she recognise that her rigid

    167
    adherence to the zero option is not sufficient? It may be the best option, but it is not the only option. If the opening bid is to be the closing bid, there can be no negotiations. Will the Prime Minister therefore move from the rigid position that she has adopted?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that unilateralism constitutes one-sided weakness. That would be Britain's weakness. That would be totally unacceptable to most of us in the House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the zero option would be absolutely the best. In the absence of the zero option, we must have balanced numbers. The place to get balanced numbers is at the negotiating table at Geneva.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been too much talk in the past week or two about gloom and doom for our economy by the Opposition parties and people outside who ought to know better? Will she take it from me that after the night is the dawn and that provided the Treasury continues with its flexible and pragmatic policies 1983 will be a good year for the Government and the country?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend and knight for his gracious and sage advice and I congratulate him.
    Mr. Foot: Returning to the right hon. Lady's replies to more serious questions a little earlier, may I ask when the Government will be able to give a considered reply to the proposals made by Mr. Andropov before Christmas, to which the right hon. Lady gave her answer before reading what they were? Taking into account the later proposals from the meeting in Prague, when will the British Government make a response, especially as it seems that some months ago in Geneva there was the possibility of an agreement? Have the Government any view about that, as we believe that it would have been far better to back the proposals made by Mr. Rostow at that time?
    The Prime Minister: The nature of the dual track agreement in December 1979, honoured by all NATO countries, was that cruise missiles would be deployed unless the SS20s were taken down. After that came the zero option proposal, which is undoubtedly the best. If the SS20s are not taken right down, cruise will start to be deployed. The numbers to be deployed will depend upon achieving a balanced agreement with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. If the SS20s are not taken down, we must start to deploy cruise missiles. Mr. Helmut Schmidt in Germany was extremely firm about that. Indeed, I believe that it was partly his firmness that brought the Russians to the negotiating table.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady has not attempted to answer the question. What is her view about the Rostow proposals, which did not involve continued insistence on the zero option, however desirable? Furthermore, does she recall that in our debates before Christmas there was considerable discussion of the dual control of the new missiles which, in certain circumstances, the Government propose to establish in this country? It is now claimed that the British Government have refused to insist on dual control. Do they intend to continue with that view or shall we insist that British control be established over these weapons?
    The Prime Minister: The principle is a balance in order to deter. The best balance between the Soviet Union and NATO is zero. In the absence of that, one must have a balance between the SS20s and the cruise and Pershing missiles, which are in the same range of intermediate nuclear weapons. That is the proposition before us. One hopes to achieve the zero option, but in the absence of that we must achieve balanced numbers. In calculating the balance, one must not go in for bogus counting. Some of the propositions that have been put up, and repeated, involved bogus counting. We must not allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes in that respect.
    The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the dual key. The use of United States bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States' Government in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time. That is the same rule as existed under the Labour Government and as has existed for the past 30 years. I am aware that concern has been expressed about the effectiveness of the arrangements and I have satisfied myself that they are effective.
    Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time during her busy day to note reports of demonstrations by certain women within the parliamentary buildings yesterday? Does she agree that such extra-parliamentary activity, as it has been called, is made more likely by the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, not so much by his giving succor and encouragement to the women demonstrating at Greenham Common, as by his support and endorsement of that advocate of extra-parliamentary opposition, Mr. Peter Tatchell? Does my right hon. Friend agree that extra-parliamentary opposition too often means anti-parliamentary opposition and should accordingly be condemned?
    The Prime Minister: One is obviously against anti-parliamentary opposition of any kind, from wheresoever it may come, as all of us here believe in fundamentally democratic systems. Part of those democratic systems is, of course, the ability to demonstrate and to express one's views outside the House. I look forward to the time when demonstrations about nuclear weapons can take place as easily in Moscow as here.
    Mr. Beithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: As it was the right hon. Lady's own private Member's Bill, which she moved in her maiden speech in 1960, that safeguarded the rights of the press to be admitted to meetings of public bodies, how can she support the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, later today, will ask us to repeal that legislation in so far as it applies to the water authorities that he is setting up, allowing those bodies, appointed entirely by the Secretary of State and his colleagues, to meet in the absence of any public scrutiny over their spending of our money?
    The Prime Minister: It is because the nature of the authority is being changed entirely, from its previous form to an executive body.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the two excellent statements from BL this week, showing a 99½5 per cent. strike-free record for the Rover

    169
    company and a similar record for Jaguar, with sales to America increased by 120 per cent.? Does she agree that co-operation between management and workers at BL has contributed most to that record and will help British industry more than anything else that we can imagine?
    The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon Friend has said. BL has done very well recently in its export record, and the record of Jaguar within the group is outstanding, but it has a long way to go before it breaks even, let alone generates sufficient capital to produce the next generation of cars. In the meantime, BL is doing much better. I join my hon Friend in praising the work that has been done and attribute it to the same cause as he does.
    Dr. Summerskill: When the Prime Minister visits my constituency on Friday of this week will she explain to the people there why there are now nearly 7,000 unemployed in Halifax, with more redundancies being announced nearly every day, why hospital wards are due to close, why there have been massive cuts in all the social services and why anyone should vote for her at the next general election?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, despite what is now an excellent record in retail sales, a sufficiently large proportion of those sales is not coming from home production because British manufacturing industry is insufficiently competitive either in price or in design and must improve. The demand is there, but British industry is not taking a sufficient part of the home market.
    On the second part of the question, as the hon. Lady knows, old-age pensions have more than kept pace with inflation and the pensioners received their Christmas bonus. [interruption.]The hon. Lady asked about the social services and I am telling her. In the Health Service, there are more doctors and nurses than there were under the Labour Government. An extra 5 per cent. in real terms is being spent on it, and so on.
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the right Lady recall that during her trip last week she declared that she would defend to the full all Falklanders' rights, but that immediately she returned to this country she said that she would not support the British right to work? Is the price that she is now paying for the stability of the pound the total abandonment of the Britisn unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: The two issues are not connected. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
    Mr. Churchill: With regard to my right hon. Friend's reply to the Leader of the Opposition about the command and control of United States cruise missiles that are to be based in Britain, will she re-emphasise that not only have conditions not changed in the past 30 years but that it remains the case that the affirmative agreement of the British Prime Minister is required before any United States nuclear weapons that are based on these islands can be launched?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I have satisfied myself about the effectiveness of the arrangements for joint decision.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Prime Minister find time today to advise the Secretary of State for unemployment, who will visit my constituency on Thursday, that welcome though the improvement in production by Jaguar cars is, it is still barely 50 per cent. of what it produced under a previous chief executive? Does she agree that the real problem in Coventry and the rest of the west midlands is that there is 20 per cent. male unemployment and that one-third of our manufacturing capacity has been lost? Will not the Prime Minister realise that some Government intervention is necessary to coordinate and increase Government purchasing, via British Leyland, with component and capital goods suppliers in the west midlands before the devastation goes any further?
    The Prime Minister: If we recover a greater share of the car market, we shall be doing extremely well by the west midlands, but that must be done by the industry itself. When reviewing regional policy, the Government have an eye on what has happened in regions such as the west midlands.

Falkland Islands (Franks Report)
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: Statement, The Prime Minister.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just after midnight last night, I raised a point of order about Mr. Bernard Ingham and his proposed 11 am and 2.45 pm guidance to journalists. From the Opposition Front Bench last night, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), the Opposition Chief Whip, said that he thought that the issues were substantial and invited the Leader of the House to comment. Very fairly and properly, and acting in his capacity as Leader of the whole House, the right hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said from the Dispatch Box that he agreed that the matter should be considered by you, Mr. Speaker, this morning. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker announced then that he would report the matter to you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Franks committee had been set up by the House, there would have been a succession of breach of privilege cases, besides which the cases of the late Sir Gerald Nabarro on car tax, of the leak of the Civil List and of myself in relation to Porton Down would have paled into insignificance—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is reading."] Indeed, in 1967, for talking prematurely about the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to Laurence Marks of The Observer, I was arraigned before the whole House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will submit a point of order to me on which I can rule.
Mr. Dalyell: What I said was trivial and obscure compared with the reports in The Observer on Sunday by Mr. Adam Raphael and the long report in The Scotsman which I sent to you, Sir, by the responsible diplomatic correspondent Alexander MacLeod, who reported in detail and authoritatively much of what Lord Franks said and his conclusions.
The point of order is this. Is there to be one law for Downing Street and another for Back Benchers? If Downing Street did not make the leak, who did? Lord Franks? A member of his committee? Was it Lord Carrington? Was it the Foreign Office? The House of Commons is entitled to a statement on prima facie breaches of the Official Secrets Act.
When the committee was set up, so great was the store that was set by the need for secrecy that it had to be Privy Councillors who were appointed to it. Rightly, Sir Patrick Nairn was appointed to the Privy Council precisely for that purpose.
In the absence of what some of us consider the civilised and sensible habit of an embargo for the Lobby so that they can study things in a relaxed and proper manner, what we have had is selective briefing and selected leaking by interested parties. Moreover—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must now submit a point of order to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has done it."] If he has done it, I am quite willing to give my ruling. He must now come to the point. The House is waiting to hear a statement.
Mr. Dalyell: Is it right for the House of Commons to face a situation where a Prime Minister can put her own
172
gloss on something? If Downing Street was not responsible, let us have an inquiry to discover who made the leak. The first thing in the public mind is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House in this matter. This is not a matter over which I have any authority to rule. It is not a report that has been commissioned by the House. It is a Government report. It is not for me to tell the Government how they may conduct their own affairs. Statement, the Prime Minister.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order on another matter, Mr. Speaker, which is your responsibility. Some hon. Members are privileged enough to have had a copy of the report for a long time. Others are scurrying out of the Chamber to get one now. Would it not be better for the statement to be made when all hon. Members, especially Back Benchers, for whom I know you have a special concern, Mr. Speaker, are on an equal footing when the statement is made? Would it not be sensible for this sitting to be suspended—
Hon. Members: No.
Other Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Foulkes: —to allow hon. Members to read the report or for the Prime Minister's statement to be postponed until hon. Members have read it?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
3.37 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the report of the Falkland Islands review committee.
The House will remember that I announced the setting up of the review committee in July 1982, after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and with leading Privy Councillors in other parties. At that time I expressed the hope that the committee would be be able to complete its work within six months.
The committee has justified that hope. I received its report on 31 December 1982, and I am presenting it to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon. Copies are now available in the Vote Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."]
I should like to express the Government's gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and to his colleagues for the amount of time and effort which they have devoted to producing such a thorough and comprehensive report in so short a time.
The report makes it clear that the committee was provided with all the papers relevant to its terms of reference, including a comprehensive collection of reports from the intelligence agencies. The committee's report contains a number of references to intelligence matters which would not in other circumstances be divulged. These references are essential for a full understanding of the matters into which the committee was asked to enquire, and the Government have agreed that the public interest requires that on this occasion the normal rule against public reference to the intelligence organisation or to material derived from intelligence reports should be waived.
The Government have, however, agreed with Lord Franks amendments to certain of the references to

173
intelligence reports with a view to minimising potential damage to British intelligence interests. Lord Franks has authorised me to tell the House that he agrees that, first, all the references to intelligence reports included in the committee's report as submitted have been retained in the report as presented to Parliament, most of them without amendment; secondly, none of the amendments that have been made alters the sense, substance or emphasis of the reference to the intelligence report concerned, or removes anything of significance to the committee's account of the matters referred to it or to its findings and conclusions; thirdly, apart from those agreed amendments, no other deletions or amendments have been made to the committee's report as submitted.
The report is unanimous and is signed by all the members of the committee without qualification. It falls into four chapters. The first gives an account of the dispute from 1965—when the issue was first brought formally to international attention by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations—to May 1979.
The second chapter covers the period from May 1979 to 19 March 1982. The third deals with the fortnight from 19 March to 2 April 1982, which included the South Georgia incident and which led up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The fourth and final chapter deals with the way in which the Government discharged their responsibilities in the period leading up to the invasion. There are six annexes, the first of which deals with 10 specific assertions that have been made by some who have commented on the matters in question.
In the fourth chapter of the report—that is, the one that deals with the way Government discharged their responsibilities—the committee notes a number of points where, in its judgment, different decisions might have been taken, fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might have been advantageous, and the machinery of government could have been better used. That chapter defines and addresses itself to two crucial questions: first, could the Government have foreseen the invasion of 2 April 1982; seondly, could the Government have prevented the invasion?
The committee emphasises that its report should be read as a whole. At this stage, therefore, I shall do no more than quote the committee's conclusions on those two crucial questions. On the first question, whether the Government could have foreseen the invasion of 2 April, the committee's conclusion is:
"In the light of this evidence, we are satisfied that the Government did not have warning of the decision to invade. The evidence of the timing of the decision taken by the Junta shows that the Government not only did not, but could not, have had earlier warning. The invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April could not have been foreseen."
I have quoted the whole of paragraph 266.
On the second question, whether the Government could have prevented the invasion, the committee's conclusion, contained in the final paragraph of the report, is:
"Against this background we have pointed out in this Chapter where different decisions might have been taken, where fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might, in our opinion, have been advantageous, and where the machinery of Government could have been better used. But, if the British Government had acted differently in the ways we have indicated, it is impossible to judge what the impact on the Argentine Government or the implications for the course of events might have been. There is no reasonable basis for any suggestion—which would be purely hypothetical—that the invasion would have been prevented if the Government had acted in the ways indicated in our report. Taking account of these
174
considerations, and of all the evidence we have received, we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government"—
[Laughter.]
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Prime Minister: May I finish the conclusion of the Franks Committee? It was its conclusion and has nothing to do with the Government. It said:
"we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta's decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982."
I have quoted in full the final paragraph of the Franks report.
Time will, of course, be found for an early debate, and that will be discussed through the usual channels. The Government will welcome an early opportunity of discussing the matters contained in the report more thoroughly than is possible this afternoon.
Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised a question about leakages. Anyone who read some of the reports in the newspapers could have reached a prime facie opinion that there was some leakage. It is a serious question. Will the right hon. Lady investigate the matter and report to the House? That is the most satisfactory way to deal with the matter, and such a course has been taken on previous occasions.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady's proposal for a debate will be accepted. The Opposition naturally concur with her suggestion. I hope that the Government will agree that the debate—I trust it will take place next week—will be a two-day debate. We had lengthy debates on the subject last year and it would be unsatisfactory to have a debate that was principally occupied by Privy Councillors. Many of them have every right to speak, but there should be a full two-day debate. Will the right hon. Lady agree to that now?
Most of the right hon. Lady's statement concerned procedural questions, and I shall put one procedural question to her before moving on. When the committee was established in July, she properly gave an undertaking that if any Minister or civil servant felt that they had suffered unfair criticism in the report, they would have the chance to reappear before the committee to state their views and to have them taken further into account. Have any civil servants or Ministers availed themselves of that opportunity?
The right hon. Lady referred to the clear statement in paragraph 336 of the report about the Committee's conclusions. It is essential that the report is read as a whole. I am one of the few hon. Members who have had an opportunity to read it, and I am happy to confirm its judgment. There are references to the machinery of government and the failures that may have occurred. Indeed, the right hon. Lady referred to that. I wish to quote a paragraph from the report which illustrates why it is necessary to examine the whole report before passing judgment on its conclusions. It is necessary to draw the right conclusions to ensure that the same tragic errors are not committed in future. In the words of the Foreign Secretary who resigned, those errors led to a national humiliation. [Interruption.] It was pretty tragic for the people who were killed. We need to know whether

175
measures will be taken to ensure that such a tragic development does not occur again, perhaps in Belize, which is not such a different example.
For those reasons, I wish to put to the House another paragraph that illustrates the case most clearly. Paragraph 115 states:
"When they were informed of the decision"—
that is, the decision to withdraw HMS "Endurance"—
"the Falkland Islands Councils held a joint meeting on 26 June 1981, following which they sent a message to Lord Carrington in the following terms:
'The people of the Falkland Islands deplore in the strongest terms the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from service. They express extreme concern that Britain appears to be abandoning its defence of British interests in the South Atlantic and Antarctic at a time when other powers are strengthening their position in these areas. They feel that such a withdrawal will further weaken British sovereignty in this area in the eyes not only of Islanders but of the world. They urge that all possible endeavours be made to secure a reversal of this decision'."
On the following page the report describes fully for the first time what happened to those "all possible endeavours". One would have thought that in the face of such an appeal "all possible endeavours" should have included a reference of this matter to the Cabinet or to the Overseas and Defence Committee of the Cabinet. There was a difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am talking now about what happened to the Falkland Islands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am coming to my question to the right hon. Lady. There was a difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence about the withdrawal of HMS "Endurance". The Foreign Secretary, who resigned, persisted in his attempt to raise the matter.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the proper place for the question to have been decided—the difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence—was either in the Overseas and Defence Committee over which she presides or the Cabinet over which she is supposed to preside? Does she agree, having read the entire report, that it illustrates a collapse of effective Cabinet government in this country—[Interruption.] We had Cabinet government in this country that could not even discuss this appeal from the Falkland Islands. Will the right hon. Lady tell us now what changes she is making in the effective control of the Government to ensure that such a tragic event does not arise again?
The Prime Minister: On the first question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which was raised before I made my statement, about the alleged briefing of the press, the remarks that were made rightly cause deep offence to a very distinguished civil servant who has served both Governments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Leaking."] The leaking was not from No. 10. As a civil servant has been named, and it is my duty and pleasure to defend him, may I say that there was never an arrangement for my press secretary to brief the press on the contents of the Franks report before its publication. To help the press to digest the report in the short time available to them after publication, my press secretary was prepared to give them a list of numbers of key paragraphs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—knowing full well that those paragraphs could have been tested against the report when published and that it could have
176
been seen whether he had been fair or not—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggesting that he would have been unfair?
Hon. Members: Yes.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What I am suggesting to the right hon. Lady is that she talks about guidance for certain paragraphs, but she just said in response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the report should be read in its entirety, not just selected paragraphs.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Prime Minister: So the hon. Gentleman is not accusing my press secretary. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for enabling me to make that point.
However, in view of what occurred in the House last night, about which I heard, I specifically instructed him not to brief the press either on the paragraphs or in any way. Therefore, he did not brief them on the paragraphs and had no intention at any time of briefing them on the contents, nor did he brief them on the contents. The only people outside the Government who have had the report in advance of publication are the Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—former Prime Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I shall come to the moment when. The report was also made available to the Ministers who resigned when the invasion took place. They were given the report at midday yesterday. The leaders of the other opposition parties, who were consulted on the establishment of the committee, and you, Mr. Speaker, received it this afternoon.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the report should be read as a whole—
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Lady quoted those two paragraphs.
The Prime Minister: —which is why I quoted only the conclusions, which one is entitled to quote because the Franks committee was set up to pronounce on precisely those matters. It would have been absurd to do otherwise.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the paragraphs about HMS "Endurance" and about the decision to withdraw it. If the report is to be read as a whole, he should also refer to paragraph 44, which states:
"One consequence of the 1974 Defence Review, which resulted in a phased rundown of overseas commitments outside NATO was a decision to take HMS "Endurance" out of service."
Hon. Members: Read on.
The Prime Minister: I will indeed read on. I shall read the next sentence and the one after that if need be. There was a decision to take HMS "Endurance" out of service. It was not implemented, nor was our decision to take HMS Endurance out of service implemented. [Interruption.] The fact is that the invasion ocurred while HMS Endurance was on station.
The Leader of the Opposition should also direct attention to signals and developments in British policy that are discussed in paragraphs 278 to 281, which refer also to other signals given by governments of both parties—[Interruption.]
Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order if he cannot wait until the end of the answer.

177
But may I say to the House that it is very wrong on an issue of such magnitude that anyone must fight to be heard. It is very wrong indeed.
Mr. Leighton: Is it in order and is it helpful and proper for the Prime Minister to pick and choose paragraphs of a document that none of us has had a chance to read?
The Prime Minister: I did not select this particular point. I am replying to it. I do not intend to quote from other paragraphs. A great deal that is pertinent to the point selected by the Leader of the Opposition can be found in paragraphs 278 to 281.
With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the meetings of the Overseas and Defence Committee—this is not found in the report—in 1981 there were 18 meetings of OD. Between January and March 1982 there were a further five meetings of OD. What is arranged is a matter partly for the Ministers concerned. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say how frequently OD meetings were held under his Government. The policy had been discussed and was not changed. There were plenty of meetings of OD.
Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. Lady tell me about the meetings of the Overseas and Defence Committee? Did it discuss the Falklands, in particular the representations that were made on behalf of the Falklands Council by the Foreign Secretary and the representations that were made by the Foreign Secretary for the non-withdrawal of HMS "Endurance" to the Minister of Defence? That was a major division of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. It should have been discussed at the Overseas and Defence Committee. The responsibility for ensuring what subjects are discussed at the Committee rests not with the Foreign Secretary or with the Defence Secretary but with the Prime Minister who is the chairman of that Committee.
The Prime Minister: The report deals fully with what was discussed, when and how those matters were dealt with between members of OD. The report should be read in full. The report points out that the meetings were not again discussed at OD. That was not unreasonable at the time in view of the close contact kept between Ministers on that occasion. It was discussed on many occasions, not necessarily at OD. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that somehow one becomes totally different when sitting as a member of that Committee. I find it utterly amazing that that is the only comment that the Opposition have to offer on this report and its conclusions.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady must not say that. This is not the only question for discussion. We want the House of Commons to discuss this report on the basis stated by the Franks committee itself. It is essential to discuss the whole report.
Can the right hon. Lady answer the other question that I put? Did any Minister or civil servants exercise their right to return to the committee to put their case?
The Prime Minister: That was part of the arrangement made and published with the Franks report. Everything that was put in that letter was, I understand, honoured completely.
Mr. James Callaghan: Although "Endurance" is not the major point, is not the difference between the right hon. Lady's reading of the facts and the case she quoted from paragraph 44, that the then Defence
178
Secretary in the Labour Government proposed to abandon "Endurance" but was overruled? In the case of her own Government, it was the Foreign Secretary who was overruled when the decision to abandon "Endurance" was announced. That is all the difference in the world.
Hon Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. James Callaghan: On the major question, all parties for many years, including the right hon. Lady's Government, have been prepared to give up sovereignty of the Falklands provided we could get a substantial period of leaseback. The right hon. Lady was committed to that until March of this year.
Is it further not the fact that all Governments were determined not to desert the Falklanders because they thought it would be unacceptable? Was it not also the case that all Governments believed that the worst of all possible policies—one that might be unsustainable in the long run and certainly undesirable in the short run—was a Fortress Falklands policy? Is not the result of the Government's handling of these matters during the last 12 months that we are presented under the direction of the right hon. Lady with a short-term military victory and a long-term political retreat and dead end?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Prime Minister: I am very wary of saying anything that is not a quotation from the report. The right hon. Gentleman has seen something of the themes of which he spoke. Factors common to the approach of both Governments are contained in the early pages of the report. The significant themes of the period are summed up in paragraph 70. The dilemma for both Governments was that Argentina wanted sovereignty and the Falkland Islanders, whose wishes we regarded as paramount, wanted to stay British. That was the fundamental dilemma which applied to both Governments. In the end Argentina invaded. With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we now have no option except Fortress Falklands—[Interruption.] May I just continue?—if we are to continue, as I believe we should, to honour the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
Mr. John Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is something pitiful in the scavenge hunt now being conducted by the Opposition for a few crumbs of comfort? Does she not further agree that there ought to be some sympathy for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who obviously had hoped for a stick with which he might be able to beat the Government and has instead been presented with a mirror to look at his own disappointing visage?
The Prime Minister: The conclusions of the report are clear. I believe the Franks report really should be read as a whole by all right hon. and hon. Members. Adequate time in which to debate the report is being arranged through the usual channels. How long questions continue is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Steel: May I join in the thanks to my noble Friend Lord Franks and his colleagues for his swift and thorough report that they have given to the House?
Does the Prime Minister recall that the decision to withdraw "Endurance" was controversial in the House at the time? Will she accept that Lord Franks reveals not only the message from the Falkland Islands Council

179
but—further to what the Leader of the Opposition said—also the fact that a letter was sent from our embassy in Buenos Aires in the summer of 1981 saying that all Argentine newspaper articles
"highlighted the theme that Britain was 'abandoning the protection of the Falkland Islands'."?
That was further supported by an intelligence report in 1981
"that the withdrawal of HMS 'Endurance' had been construed by the Argentines as a deliberate political gesture … since the implications for the Islands and for Britain's position in the South Atlantic were fundamental."
In view of what I have said, surely the Prime Minister must tell the House why she did not give support to Lord Carrington when he was trying to retain the ship on station.
The Prime Minister: I believe the right hon. Gentleman is looking at the matter with some hindsight. "Endurance" was retained and, in fact, was on station between the Falklands and South Georgia at the time of the invasion of the Falklands. She had been on station at the Falklands, but was sent to South Georgia when the incident occurred there. She was on her way back when we had the intelligence about the Falklands. Whatever the criticism, the fact is that "Endurance" was on station. The report says that it was a signal to the Argentines, but it also gave many other signals alongside that, some of which are attributable to Opposition Members and some to us. Those signals are contained in the paragraphs to which I have referred.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this matter will be debated in the near future. Therefore, we are not debating it today. I hope that questions will be succinct, and I shall allow them to continue for a while longer.
Sir John Eden: Will my right hon. Friend set aside the Opposition's small-minded questioning and remind the House that the prime act of duplicity was committed by the Argentine junta? Will she confirm that, throughout, Ministers and Government officials made it clear to the Argentine that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders would remain paramount?
Hon. Members: Then why did Carrington resign?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Some of the noises we have heard are perhaps due to the fact that some Opposition Members do not like the conclusions of this independent committee. It is inherent in the Franks report that it was Argentina which decided to invade. The report states that the British Government could not have foreseen that invasion, or prevented it. I hope that at this time in particular there will be no question of departing from the wish—which has sustained both sides of this honourable House throughout our many debates on the subject—that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount, in which case we must defend them in accordance with those wishes.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does not the Prime Minister recall that in the debate on 8 July, when the Franks committee was set up, some of us predicted that, as she had the power to choose the members of the committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and its terms of reference, and as she had the power to manipulate its
180
publication—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—this would be an establishment cover-up and a whitewash? As the right hon. Lady is one of the few people who has had the privilege of reading the whole report, will she say whether our fears have been confirmed and her hopes realised?
An Hon. Member: Shocking.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I had consultations with the leaders of political parties in this House. We jointly agreed on Lord Franks as the chairman, and there could be no better servant of this country than Lord Franks. I deeply resent what the hon. Gentleman has said, which I believe to be a criticism and slur on both Lord Franks and the whole committee. We also agreed on Sir Patrick Nairne as the other independent member of the committee. In addition, we agreed that the Opposition and Government parties should propose two names. They were also discussed. Therefore, the arrangements for the membership of the committee were agreed in full and proper consultation across all parties of this House.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!99
The Prime Minister; The terms of reference were debated in this House and I believe, fully approved. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir Angus Maude: Would it not be right to emphasis the fact that in a summary annex to this unanimous report, the committee dealt with each and every assertion by opponents of the Government and independent commentators about prior warning or information that the Government had received before the invasion, and found all of them to be without foundation?
The Prime Minister: That is correct. Annex A contains a summary of the various assertions that have been made by various commentators, as well as the findings of the committee upon those assertions.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Was there, in fact, any collective discussion of the Falklands issue between Ministers in the early months up to the end of March last year either in OD, Cabinet or any other collective forum? Am I correct in saying that at the end of her reply to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the right hon. Lady indicated that she had no policy for the indefinite future other than that of Fortress Falklands?
The Prime Minister: The matter was not discussed in OD from January to March. If it had been, I do not think that there would have been any difference at all. Lord Carrington kept in touch with all members of OD through a series of minutes over a long period in addition to other contacts. The right hon. Gentleman will find that referred to in the report.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether Fortress Falklands was the only policy. The policy is that the wishes of the islanders will be paramount. That used to be the policy of the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member. It is the policy that this House has insisted should be upheld. The defence requirements after an invasion now follow from that policy.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the Prime Minister recollect that on Tuesday, 26 October, in answer to Prime Minister's

181
Question No. 1, she confirmed that the Falkland crisis had come out of the blue to her on Wednesday 31 March? As we now know that nuclear submarines and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries were despatched from Gibraltar on Monday 29 March, and also that the crew of the "Fort Austin", which was possibly carrying nuclear weapons, were told that they were not going home but to the South Atlantic on Sunday 28 March by the barmaids of Gibraltar, how is it that the barmaids of Gibraltar have better information about the destination of the fleet, carrying nuclear weapons, than the British Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question was somewhat convoluted. The submarine was dispatched on that Monday because we were worried about the incident on South Georgia. We dispatched the submarine and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary to help keep "Endurance", about which there has been so much discussion, actively on station.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from either side before going on to the next business.
Sir Paul Bryan: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in July's debate on the Falkland Islands review, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) stated that, when the Labour Government were negotiating with Argentina in 1977, he made certain that there was a naval presence off the Falkland Islands to strengthen the hand of the negotiating Minister and to deter the Argentines? Does the report cover that situation in its opening chapter, and does it state whether the Argentines were aware of that naval presence?
The Prime Minister: That matter is dealt with in extenso earlier in the report, but also in the specific assertions that are summarised in the annex. The fifth assertion was:
"Argentina was informed by the British Government of their decision to send a task force in 1977."
I had better quote precisely. The committee's comment is:
"The facts relating to the deployment of ships to the area in November 1977 are set out in our Report (see paragraphs 65ߝ66). We have had no evidence that the Argentine Government became aware of this deployment."
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that most people reading this report will not be interested in the preservation of reputations on either side, but rather in the simple question, "Could the lives lost in the Falklands war have been saved if other action had been taken?" May I ask the Prime Minister to turn her mind not to whether the arming of the Falkland Islands earlier might have made an invasion more difficult but to a much more specific political question?
Lord Carrington on 20 September 1979—this is referred to in paragraph 73 of the report—in a paper to the Cabinet said that it was in the British interest and that of the islanders to have substantive negotiations on sovereignty. He came back to the same theme on 12 October when he said that the Fortress Falklands option would carry a serious threat of invasion. That was the Foreign Secretary's view as early as 1979. Why did the Prime Minister veto that very wise political advice and create circumstances in which Lord Carrington's warning came into effect? The real lesson of that page of the report is that it was a political failure by the Government and not
182
a failure to keep "Endurance" or to send further troops. It is that political failure that the military success has not yet obliterated or dealt with in any way.
The Prime Minister: The Franks report has come to two conclusions: first, that we did not foresee and could not have foreseen the invasion, and, secondly, that we could not have prevented it. It has come to those two clear conclusions. For the rest of the report I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads it in toto rather than take specific parts of it. He will find that what he has said has been part of the fundamental dilemma to which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. If we were to avoid going into what was called confrontation, which has many meanings attached to it and many different levels, we had to negotiate with the Argentines. That was done over many years and the report sets out the history from 1965.
It was thought that if those negotiations ever ceased then there might have been some escalation, and there were indeed from time to time escalations of the situation—times when ambassadors were withdrawn and the Argentines got involved in a number of actions. There came a time when it was difficult to sustain negotiations, but the negotiations in February in New York went rather well and the report offers my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), the former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a rather nice compliment on the way he handled those negotiations in New York.
The Argentines wanted transfer of sovereignty and no British Government were able or willing to accept transfer of sovereignty or to consider it unless it was acceptable to the islanders themselves. That was the dilemma. It affected both Governments. Parliament and Governments of both parties have insisted that the wishes of the islanders are paramount. That put us in a difficult position. Now we have to honour those wishes.
Mr. Raymond Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a bitter irony, the significance of which will not be lost on the British people, in the fact that the Leader of the Opposition referred to paragraph 115 of the report and the need to defend British interests, given that, persistently, the same right hon. Gentleman has been against adequate defence spending and that only a few minutes earlier he reminded the House that he seeks unilaterally to disarm this country?
The Prime Minister: The Franks committee has seen more people, heard more evidence and seen more papers, more reports and more minutes than any of us. It has come to its conclusions. We have no alternative but to accept its conclusions and to read the wider report before we debate it in much more detail. I did go to tremendous trouble to consult about it, for obvious reasons. During that war we kept, with very rare exceptions, all together. I hope we can finish the Falklands story in that way.
Mr. John Morris: If all is well, why on earth did Lord Carrington resign and why did the Prime Minister plead with him not to?
The Prime Minister: I pleaded with him not to because I knew we had an outstanding Foreign Secretary. Lord Carrington resigned because there were adverse comments, because of the effect of the invasion and because of the very considerable criticism of him at that time. He thought therefore that if there was to be total unity from

183
then onwards, which was absolutely vital, it would be best for him to resign. It was the act of an honourable and very great Foreign Secretary.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir Bernard Braine: When the dust settles on all this, will it not be realised that successive British Governments have been negotiating, at least since the military coup in March 1976, with an unstable, brutal, fascist regime and that the main mistake British Governments have made was believing that either Parliament or people would ever have agreed to any transfer of sovereignty over a small British community to such a regime? Looking to the future, would the Prime Minister not agree that the situation could be transformed and that we could start to forget Fortress Falklands if Argentina returned to stable, democratic parliamentary government that recognised fundamental human rights?
The Prime Minister: I agree in part with what my hon. Friend says, but I think it will be a long time before many of us can forget the invasion that occurred or the effort required to liberate those islands. It would require a very different attitude on the part of Argentina, under whatever kind of Government, before we could be certain that she had renounced all claims and would not return to the kind of unpredictable action which one sees under dictators.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that, as this matter is debated next week and in the weeks ahead, she will not adopt her traditional stance of blaming everyone else and abdicating her full responsibility for what the former Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington had described as a national humiliation?
The Prime Minister: The subject of the debate would be the Franks report. We shall be debating what Franks said and, of course, I am happy to debate that.

London Members (Greater London Council)
4.28 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. I have to inform the House that my attention has been drawn by two hon. Members, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), to certain words spoken by Mr. Kenneth Livingstone, the leader of the Greater London council and Mr. John McDonnell, the chairman of the finance and general purposes committee of that body, indicating an intention to restrict the provision of new services in the constituencies of any London Member of the House who failed to support the provisions of a forthcoming GLC money Bill.
I am satisfied that this is a matter to which I ought to allow precedence and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, whose application I received first, is accordingly at liberty to table a motion for the commencement of public business tomorrow, which the House will decide.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the announcement that you have just made, some of us who are London Members have received no communication from the people that you have named. May I ask whether you can make available to hon. Members, particularly from London, the data and the text of any such statement to which you have just referred?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to produce the evidence; it is for the hon. Gentleman who will seek the leave of the House to make his case tomorrow.

Young Persons' Rights
4.29 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to entitle all sixteen to nineteen-year-old persons to work, education and training.
The Bill would give every person between the ages of 16 and 19 a comprehensive entitlement to work, education or training with an appropriate wage or allowance. It would place a duty on the Ministers with responsibility for education and employment in United Kingdom to provide such opportunities and to arrange the scheme in such a way as to ensure that as young people move in and out of employment their education and training would continue according to a planned provision.
Two items of some importance appeared in a Glasgow newspaper. While drawing attention to those I should say that my Bill, if accepted by the House, will apply to the United Kingdom. A Strathclyde teacher, Mr. Jack McLean, writing in the Glasgow Herald by way of an end of term report shortly after the start of the summer holidays, described a conversation with one of his pupils who was leaving school:
"'Got a job to go to, Billy?' I ask as I sign their School Leavers form. 'Naw' they say"—
which, of course, in Scotland means 'No'—
"I put the form back into their hands. It might as well be, it even could be in the future, a petrol bomb I'm putting there. 'Good luck anyway,' you say, 'hope you find something.' Dear God, you think, as you see these children go down the corridor and into the outside world, can we not do better than this?"
Mr. Maclean's fears were, alas, realised and expressed a few weeks later in a letter to the Glasgow Herald written by a young girl aged 17 from Ayrshire, Frances Trainer. She said:
"I left school in May 1982 with six O-grades and four Highers, expecting to have a better chance than most in the job stakes. Two months later I was at the end of my tether, desperate to work and to prove my worth to an employer. I wrote letters by the dozen, haunted the Job Centre and still nothing. Finally, I gave in and went to the Youth Opportunities—surely one of the worst schemes ever devised. I have worked a 40-hour week for £25 alongside people who earn three and four times that. Nine times out of 10 another person is needed but the employer is content to have free labour for six months, dump you and employ another gullible school leaver who thinks £25 is a great wage."
Those are the views of two people very much involved in the problems which I hope the House will consider seriously this afternoon. They are problems with which I hope the Bill will deal effectively.
Unemployment, overwhelming though we know it to be—in the region of 4 million—hits particularly hard at the 16 to 19-year-olds whom the Bill would cover. The recent report on social trends showed that youth unemployment in Britain had reached a staggering 25 per cent. The figures for Britain in October 1982—the latest available to me—showed that youth unemployment in Britain stood at 262,976. What was just as interesting and saddening was that those involved in activities that were relevant to the youth opportunities programme numbered 280,000. Therefore, in reality, over 500,000 young people in Britain are not in real jobs.
Those figures were reflected in my constituency and, I have no doubt, in other constituencies as well. In Coatbridge and Airdrie 972 young people were registered as unemployed but 977—almost exactly the same figure—were involved in the youth opportunities programme. The young people in the various youth
186
training schemes, however adequate or inadequate they may be, are cloaking the real figures and the underlying frustrations and resentment among young people, which we as a society ignore at our peril.
For £25 a week many young people are in temporary jobs that are boring, repetitive, lacking in challenge, and offering no promotion prospects whatever. Travel costs of £4 a week cannot be reclaimed so they take home £21 a week. It is surely worth reflecting on the thought that if they were receiving supplementary benefit they would be getting £18·90 a week—a mere £2·10 less for not working at all. But, of course, they do want to work. My proposals to the House reflect the growing view of Britain's young people that we have not properly planned for changing employment patterns, for micro development, for the changing role of employment and its relationship to leisure.
There has been no obviously acceptable strategy for the social and educational fabric of our country. We have allowed cuts in local authority expenditure on education, industrial training boards have been axed, university places have disappeared. We have seen the collapse of apprenticeships, massive cuts in the Manpower Services Commission, a chaotic system of benefits, awards and bursaries for training and education, and, above all, as many of Britain's young people believe, an attack on the wage levels of our young workers.
The Bill would recognise that Britain now has both a training and a youth unemployment problem, for which responsibility should be placed on the appropriate Ministers. It will provide opportunities for positive and rewarding employment, education or training for every young person in Britain between the ages of 16 and 19. It will recognise that essential liberties can be maintained only if our young people are given such basic rights. The Bill also recognises that first-class proposals for education, jobs and training will show that the House does not regard the vast majority of Britain's young people as second-class citizens. Our young people represent not Britain's forgotten generation but our most precious asset for the future. We owe it to them to offer hope for the future in place of the despair of the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Jim Craigen, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Michael Martin, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. George Foulkes, and Mr. John Home Robertson.

Young Persons' Rights
  YOUNG PERSON'S RIGHTS
  Mr. Tom Clarke accordingly presented a Bill to entitle all sixteen to nineteen-year-old persons to work, education and training: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 April 1983. [Bill 56.]

WATER [MONEY] (No. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the National Water Council, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenditure attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session empowering the Treasury to give guarantees in connection with sums borrowed by the National Water Council.—[Mr. Cope.]

Orders of the Day

  Water Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Eric Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it might be convenient for you to consider, very early in our proceedings, a submission. New clause 5 appears on the Amendment Paper but not on the provisional selection list that was provided by Mr. Speaker. I emphasise the words "provisional selection list". May I make the point through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Mr. Speaker, that new clause 5 falls entirely within the purview of the Bill?
  The Bill's title is the "Water Bill". The long title is:
  "To make provision as to the constitution and procedure of water authorities and their borrowing and other powers"—
  I emphasise "and other powers". The long title also provides, unfortunately, for the dissolution of the National Water Council and seeks
  "to repeal section 25(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1974".
  Given that this is the Water Bill, that the long title includes the words "and other powers" and that the long title specifically allows for repeal of part of the Local Government Act 1974, I would ask you to submit to Mr. Speaker that new clause 5 should be debated. It states:
  "In section 11 of the Local Government Act 1974"—
  which is referred to in the long title—
  "(which provides for the statutory rate rebate scheme)"—
  and water authorities are to obtain their money on the basis of a rate scheme and of the rateable value of a house—
  "after the word 'rates' in subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words 'including water rates'."
  Unfortunately new clause 5 is not at present included in the provisional selection list but it would give the Minister and the water authority the power to allow water rate rebates just as other authorities are entitled to give rate rebates on the rateable value of houses.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech now. Has he concluded his point of order?
  Mr. Ogden: No, Sir. I was suggesting that new clause 5 did nothing that was not referred to in the long title and which the Bill allows others to do. Will you draw to Mr. Speaker's attention my suggestion that it might be possible to debate and discuss this admirable new clause later?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, Mr. Speaker has made the selection. However, new clause 5 refers to section 11 of the Local Government Act 1974 and is out of order because that Act was repealed by the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Might it not have been more helpful if the normal procedure for tabling amendments had been followed? We could then have tabled amendments yesterday instead of running the risk of having them starred. Surely it is in the best interests of the House that relevant issues are fully discussed. As a result of a change in the business of the House, hon. Members went away during the recess under the impression that they could spend yesterday getting their
  188
  amendments in order. However, they found on their arrival yesterday that it was too late to table amendments other than in the starred form. Although some hon. Members received the message that the Chair might adopt a different attitude towards starred amendments from usual, it was too late for those of us who wished to ensure a proper debate about rebates on the water rate to table amendments.
  I should have thought that the procedures of the House would encourage the full and frank debate of such issues and would not prevent a debate because an hon. Member had failed to ensure that a reference in an amendment was completely accurate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was perfectly possible to table amendments during the recess. I understand that Mr. Speaker has already selected some of the starred amendments, so the hon. Gentleman is not making a particularly sound point.

  Water Bill
    New Clause 1

      REGIONAL WATER RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEES
      '(1) Each regional water authority shall appoint a regional water recreation advisory committee which shall have the duty to advise respective water authorities and associated water undertakings on the discharge of their statutory responsibilities, and matters related thereto, in respect of recreation, navigation, conservation and amenity.

      (2) Each regional water recreation advisory committee shall consist of not less than 12 members but shall not exceed 20, who shall elect from their own members a chairman and vice-chairman Who shall hold office for each financial year.

      (3) Of the members of the committee:

      (a) not less than two, but no more than four, shall be appointed by the authority after consultation with those statutory and other bodies who appear to the authority as having a duty or concern for navigation;

      (b) not less than four, but no more than six persons shall be appointed by the authority after consultation with national or local bodies who have responsibility or concern for the encouragement of sport and recreation—other than recreational fishing or angling—or who provide facilities therefor;

      (c) not less than three, but no more than four persons, shall be appointed by the authority after consultation with bodies concerned with recreational fishing or angling;

      (d) not less than two, but no more than four persons, shall be appointed after consultation with national or local bodies having a concern for wildlife or the conservation of the natural environment;

      (e) others may be appointed up to the maximum number after consultation with the water recreation advisory committee.

      (4) Each member of the committee shall hold and vacate office in accordance with his respective appointment and shall be eligible for re-appointment on ceasing to hold office, but any such member may at any time by notice addressed to the chairman of the respective water authority resign his office.

      (5) In making appointments to the regional water recreation advisory committee each water authority shall have regard to the balance of water related activity and features found in their respective regions and for continuity in membership of each committee.

      (6) Each regional water recreation advisory committee shall make an annual report to the Secretary of State concerning the discharge of their duties, together with an associated financial statement.

      (7) Each regional water authority shall provide its respective water recreation advisory committee with such accommodation, officers and facilities as appears to them appropriate and shall defray expenditure incurred by the committee as they or the Secretary of State shall decide.

      189

      (8) Each regional water authority may pay members of each water recreation advisory committee such allowances or reimbursement of expenses incurred by the duties of their office as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall take new clause 7—Regional Water Space Amenity Council

      '(1) Each Water Authority shall establish a body to be known as the Water Space Amenity Council consisting of:—

      (a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State;

      (b) two members appointed after consultation with the Countryside Commission;

      (c) one member appointed after consultation with the English Tourist Board;

      (d) two members appointed after consultation with the Sports Council;

      (e) members appointed after consultation with such association of local authorities and such bodies representing persons interested in the use of water and of any land associated with water for the purposes of recreation or the enhancement and preservation of amenity, as the Secretary of State considers desirable;

      (f) two members appointed after consultation with the National Anglers Council;

      (2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

      (a) to advise the Water Authority, after consultation with the Countryside Commission, the English Tourist board and the Sports Council, on the formulation, promotion and execution of the national policy for water so far as relating to recreation and amenity in England;

      (b) to advise the water authorities on the discharge of their respective functions so far as so relating;

      (c) to submit to water authorities any proposals which the Commission consider appropriate for the discharge of the authorities' functions so far as so relating; and

      (d) to encourage and assist the water authorities in the preparation of plans and programmes under section 24 below for the discharge of those functions so far as so relating.

      (3) The Commission may collate and publish information and reports on matters relating to recreation and amenity in connection with water.

      (4) The members of the Council shall be appointed for a period of time to be designated by the Secretary of State and shall, each year, elect a Chairman and Deputy Chairman of their Council.

      (5) The Water Authority shall provide the Commission with such officers and such accommodation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and shall defray any expenditure incurred by the Commission with the Approval of the Secretary of State in the discharge of their functions.

      (6) The Water Authority may pay members of the Commission, other than the Chairman of the Water authorities, such allowances as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.'. and the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 20, at end insert—

      '(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) above shall require each water authority to establish committees, called Consumer Consultative Committees.

      (3) The number of Committees to be established shall be determined by each water authority after consultation with each relevant local authority whose area is wholly or partly in the area of the water authority.

      (4) The water authority shall secure, as respects each Consumer Consultative Committee, that:—

      (a) at least one member thereof is appointed by each relevant local authority;

      (b) at least half of the members thereof shall consist of persons appointed by those relevant local authorities;

      (c) the Chairman thereof shall be elected by the members from one of their number;

      (d) the appointment of a person to act as Secretary thereof shall be made by the Consumer Consultative Committee;

      (e) the expenses reasonably incurred by the Consumer Consultative Committee are approved and paid.

      (5) In this section, "relevant local authority" means, in relation to a Consumer Consultative Committee, the council of a London
      190
      Borough or of a country or district as defined in relation to England in section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 or of a county or district mentioned in section 20(3) of that Act (which relates to Wales) or the Common Council of the City of London of which the area or part of it is in each case included in the area of the Consumer Consultative Committee".

      No. 11, in clause 7, page 5, line 21 leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) Any body established for the purposes of representing consumers' interests shall include persons nominated by the following bodies:

      (a) the regional organisations of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress;

      (b) Chambers of Commerce

      (c) the Consumer Council and the Consumer Association;

      (d) the Regional Council for Sport and Recreation; and

      (e) local authorities within the area of the Water Authority.'.

      No. 13, in clause 7, page 6, line 7 at end insert
      ';and
      (c) to appoint to any consumer body specified by the arrangements such representatives of the interests of consumers in the area as may be nominated by local authorities or other bodies in accordance with the arrangements, unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise.'.
      Government amendment No. 15.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause seeks to set up regional water recreation advisory committees in every part of England and Wales that is covered by the respective water authorities. As a Back Bencher I am privileged to move a new clause to this important Bill at prime time. I am glad that the new Secretary of State for the Environment is present, at least for the moment. We look to him for imaginative and sympathetic administration. We know something of his record as a Minister in the Department, and I hope that he will set a precedent by considering, in new clause 1, matters that have nothing to do with party differences.
      The new clause does not relate to any party difference. It is a pity that this debate was originally advertised for tomorrow. On 23 December it was announced that this debate would take place on Wednesday. For reasons that we can guess, the business has been transposed. As a result, many hon. Members may not attend the debate today. However, I hope that they will exercise their judgment, if necessary, in due course.
      Although there may be a difference of opinion about the advisability of removing all local representation from water authorities, everyone agrees that some alternative or additional means of public consultation must be written into the Bill.
      Clause 7 purports to set up some new form of consultative machinery. I hope that there will not be too many differences, but the differences that exist centre on the machinery that should be set up and on whether and how it should be incorporated into statute. I note that the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) has tabled an amendment that relates to strengthening clause 7 and to making the consumer committees that the Government are committed to more effective than at present proposed. There is no need to disagree and there is no difference between us about the powers of the new advisory or consultative committees. They will have powers only to advise, and they will only be consultative.
      The differences are fairly narrow and have nothing to do with party politics. Therefore, one of the issues is whether the general advisory consultative committees are good enough. The other is, as far as my new clause is

      191
      concerned, whether there need to be additional consultative committees in relation to recreation, conservation, amenity and navigation.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has tabled a new clause that is parallel to mine. His new clause 7 sets up in each region of Britain a machinery similar to that proposed in my new clause. There is not much difference between our new clauses, although there are differences of detail. I should naturally prefer my version, but when the Minister replies he will have to cover both of them together.
      There is a strong and important case for the representation, or machinery for the representation, of amenity, recreation, navigation and conservation that is separate from the consumer bodies that are incorporated in clause 7. The Minister need not necessarily accept the wording of my new clause or that of my right hon. Friend. However, if he accepts the principle of a separate advisory committee with statutory responsibility and powers, provided with sufficient accommodation and having to make a public report, preferably to the Secretary of State, he accepts the principle that we seek to establish.
      It may be that the Minister cannot accept the precise wording of either my right hon. Friend's clause or mine. However, if he accepts that principle there may be contentment, but if he refuses and says that the Government have considered that the representatives on the consumer advisory committees—those in clause 7—are sufficient for these particular interests, he will be disappointing the House and millions of people.
      I say that because the interests concerned are specific and cover a wide section of the British population. Let us look at some of the separate functions other than the supply and disposal of water through pipes and sewers, which is the main financial and operational obligation on the water authorities. There is navigation on rivers and the large number of recreations on reservoirs. There is commercial navigation and cruising navigation. There is the inland sailing world. Dinghys by the tens of thousands are found on the lakes and rivers.
      There is rowing and canoeing, which are important sports, particularly for young people. There is swimming, water skiing and sub-aqua, all of which are on the margin between sport and recreation because they involve competitive events such as regattas, but can just be a sport for an afternoon of recreation in the real sense of that word.
      On top of all that, there is the world of conservation. The Minister will know that water and conservation is a controversial topic. There have been celebrated cases where the interests of conservation as against flood control or agriculture have been matters of great controversy.
      There is also fishing. Recreational fishing interests and angling are already, to some extent, protected by statutory committees, but when we think of the use of water space and the way in which rivers, streams and reservoirs are used for surface recreation or for angling, and for the raising of fishing stock and conservation, it is clear that they must be taken together.
      Thus, although fishing is already provided for by statutory committees, if we examine recreation, conservation and amenity as a whole, it is clear that the anglers and the fishing fraternity must be there. As everybody knows, more people go fishing on a Saturday than go to football
      192
      matches. It is a rapidly growing recreation, which is also a sport because there is competition in it. It is a strong and proper amenity interest.
      The Government cannot deny any of those facts. However, as it stands, clause 7 provides only the very weakest nod in the direction of consumer interests. Clause 7 does not set up machinery in the sense of statutory consumer councils. It does not even—I see the Minister nodding his head in agreement—set up something as strong as the Post Office consumer council. Hon. Members will know from their mail just how strong or weak the Post Office statutory machine is. The electricity boards also have statutory consultative machinery, as do the gas boards, but hon. Members will also know from their mail just how effective or not those bodies can be. Clause 7 arrangements do not even meet the general arrangements of the public utilities.
      Clause 7 is for all water "consumers". Water consumers, in the sense of that word, are primarily consumers of pure water coming in pipes through a public service, or private in some cases—a service that we all appreciate and depend upon as the events of this week have shown—and its disposal. That is the prime and main objective and duty of the regional water authorities—the complete water cycle. A great deal of money, investment and technical and managerial expertise goes into that complex process.
      Industry is interested in water as well because it uses water in vast quantities. Water is a major raw material. The water authorities also get rid of dirty water in vast quantities, and the cost of that is a very important component not only for industry but for the regional water authorities. As there are all these consumers, it is clear that any consumer council in any regional water authority must, almost by function, be primarily concerned with these major matters of clean water supply and dirty water disposal and purification.
      I hope that the Government do not stick to their amendment No. 15 to clause 7. In it, they say that for the purpose of clause 7
      "'consumers' include persons who use or are likely to use, for the purpose of recreation, any water or land associated with water".
      In other words, the Government are making it clear that they extend the definition of consumer to all the interests that I have outlined. In strict terms that is so, and may include those who walk by water on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon stroll.
      Does the Minister think that the manifold interests that I have outlined in a whole area, say from Southend to Hull, or from Cirencester to Barking in the Thames water authority can be looked after by one, two or even half a dozen representatives in a consumer machinery that is not laid down in the Bill, and which will be primarily concerned with the major duties of the regional water authorities? I have known the Minister for a long time. I do not believe that he will try to persuade the House that that is what the Government think. The hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as an hon. Member the difficulties that have arisen for local committees covering perhaps a town or half a county in relation to the gas and electricity undertakings and the Post Office.
      How on earth will the arrangements under clause 7 be able to cope with the amenity and recreation interests that I have mentioned? I do not believe that the Minister will properly be able to claim that they can. That is why I have

      193
      tabled my new clause and why new clause 7 has also been suggested. Our proposals will not give any powers to amenity or recreational committees. They will only establish and constitute them, provide them with offices together with a few people to carry out secretarial work, and ensure that an annual report is made. I would have thought such proposals to be almost harmless. What objection can any Government possibly have to that type of arrangement? Without it, there will be enormous difficulty.
      5 pm
      In many parts of the country, there are good non-statutory arrangements. A number of unofficial committees have evolved in some water authorities as they have settled down over the last 10 years. They work only within the context of local authority representation on the water authorities with a hierarchy of committees manned by local representations. There has been criticism that the committees have not become sufficiently well known or as efficient as might have been the case. It is, however, undeniable that the unofficial and non-statutory arrangements, which may be operating well in may places, are rooted in the local authority sub-structure. However, the Government are removing the local authority sub-structure. There is at least a risk, given the nine or 15 directly appointed gentlemen from Whitehall who are to take their place, that the unofficial and non-statutory arrangements will be unable to flourish as they have done.
      If these arrangements are to continue, the Bill ensures that they will operate within a completely different statutory framework. The reaction of many hon. Members will be to call for a statutory consumer network or at least a network related to recreation, navigation and amenity. Until now, this has been handled on a national basis by the Water Space Amenity Commission. Every chairman of a regional water authority has been a member, ex officio, of that body, as he has of the National Water Council. Those two bodies are to be wound up. There will be no national statutory network to sustain and encourage any of the informal arrangements aleady in force. Not only the regional statutory framework, but the national statutory framework, is changed. The Water Space Amenity Commission had a duty to advise water authorities on their statutory functions under sections 20 to 22 of the parent 1973 Act. That also disappears. It is yet another reason why there is need to subsitute at local level some form of statutory advisory committee.
      I should like to make a regional point of some significance. As the hon. Member for Newham, South, I have the privilege of being a Thames riparian member. The Thames is Britain's premier river. The management of the river is well known throughout the world for its efficiency. The old story of the water of the Thames having gone through five or six stomachs before hon. Members or the people of London drink it is well known. This has only been possible because of excellent water cycle management over the years. The Thames water cycle was working towards the end of the last century and long before the 1973 Act.
      What the Minister may not know is that the River Thames has been managed by local representatives since 1750 when the first Thames commissioners were appointed. An Act of 1770 set them up in a big way. The commissioners were numerous. They included every riverside hon. Member and the mayor of every Thames
      194
      riverside town as well as landowners and others. In the middle of the last century, the Thames Conservancy was created and went out of existence only in 1973.
      Under the Bill's proposals, the Thames Water Authority is to be managed by Whitehall nominees. All local representation in the management of the Thames, for the first time in over 200 years, will disappear. That may be claimed to be an emotional point. It is, I believe, much more. The management of the Thames, especially the Thames Conservancy of blessed memory, has an enviable reputation in combining the fundamental functions of clean water supply and dirty water disposal together with all the amenities we have come to respect and enjoy.
      The upper Thames, in its semi-artificial state, is the joy of landscape painters. Yet it fulfils all the other functions that I have described. This is because a single body, the Thames Conservancy, was responsible for water supply and disposal and for amenity, recreation, navigation and fisheries. The Minister may argue that this state of affairs will continue. That is not so. It will not be the same. Although the Thames Water Authority will be responsible, those managing it will not be local people. For the first time in history, they will be appointed by the Secretary of State. It will be a very different local set-up. This will be repeated all over the country, not merely for the other navigable rivers such as the Trent and the Severn, and the Calder and the Ouse, but for every reservoir owned by local authorities where the local council or an adjacent council has been able to have its say on the board. All that is to disappear. Nothing adequate is at the moment to take its place.
      On the issue of specific water recreational advisory committees, I would have thought that the Government would leap at the opportunity. Hon. Members hear so often that the Government wish to safeguard the public, to set the people free and to give power to the people. It is a theme heard constantly from Conservative Members. I seem to recall hearing it often from the Prime Minister herself. We hear constant criticism of bureaucrats. We hear constant criticism of quangos. However, what are the Government doing? They are doing the exact opposite. They are creating new quango water authorities, which are directly appointed by Whitehall, and they are putting fully-paid bureaucrats in charge of them, with no additional safeguard for the public.
      I shall not argue about whether what these new bodies do is necessary. That is not part of this debate. The Government think that it is necessary, and they have so persuaded the Committee and the House on Second Reading. If that is so, they have a reciprocal obligation to see that the risks of so doing, the risks of bureaucracy, and the risks inherent in every quango are dealt with, and that the public are properly safeguarded. That is fully in line with their election manifesto.
      I hope that I have shown that the safeguards are not at all adequate. The responsibilities of water authorities are clear. In sections 20, 21 and 22, the responsibilities are clear. Section 20 deals with navigation and recreation. Section 22 says that regional water authorities
      "shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural, archaeological or historic interest and shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects".

      195
      As I said, hon. Members know how much correspondence these matters engender. If no such proper amenity and recreation local committees are set up, local Members will have to handle these issues. I am sure that no one on the Government Benches wants extra mileage on those issues, because we all know how much mileage they will generate and how strong feelings are. If we have a regional recreational advisory committee where people interested in these matters can get together with the experts of the regional water authorities and administrators, and perhaps discuss informally how these matters can best be dealt with, come to the optimum solutions, and put them to the water authority, hon. Members need not be bothered—nor, indeed, the Minister. At present, no such possibility exists in practice.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave an undertaking on 9 December 1982 in Committee. He said:
      "We shall seek to write into the Bill the reaffirmation of the statutory position that was included in the 1973 Act. This will ensure that under the new Act regional water authorities will have to provide the kind of linkages whose description I gave in the first part of my reply."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 December 1982; c. 200.]
      Linkage is the fundamental issue. In their amendment to clause 7, the Government are trying to say that the general consumer councils will be the linkage. I hope that I have shown that they will not be adequate and that they will not do the job.
      Although there has been little notice, I have received some support for that view. I have had letters of support from the British Canoe Union, the River Thames Society, the Countryside Commission, the Salmon and Trout Association, the Inland Waterways Association, the British Water Ski Federation, the Sports Council for England, the Sports Council for Wales, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Council for the Protection for Rural England, the Calder Navigation Society, and the Broads Society, as well as many letters from subsidiary organisations, branches and individuals.
      5.15 pm
      I want to quote the letter I received only this morning from the North West Council for Sport and Recreation which says:
      "This Clause we would support since, within the North West Region, the Regional Water Authority, through its various holdings, has a major influence on recreation. Its land holdings total some 150,000 acres, of which thirty-eight thousand are within the Lake District. The remainder is distributed … as follows:—

      47,000 acres in Lancashire

      36,000 acres in Cheshire

      10,000 acres in Merseyside

      19,000 in G.M.C.

      … There are also some 3,000 miles of river, and in excess of three hundred reservoirs."
      That is in the North-West region alone. To suggest that the interests and dilemmas inherent in that scale of plant can be dealt with by clause 7 committees is unrealistic in the extreme.
      I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, because I know that his practical common sense, if nothing else, will ensure that even if he cannot accept the wording of the new clause, he will accept the principles and thinking behind it.
      Mr. Denis Howell: So as to keep my speech within reasonable bounds, I shall adopt most of the arguments that were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whom I congratulate on his assiduous devotion to this issue, particularly during the Christmas recess, and on the trouble that he has taken to get in touch with many of the organisations which are directly involved.
      It is well within the knowledge of hon. Members that when the 1973 Water Act went through this place, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) described the use of our water resources for the purposes of recreation, sport and amenity as the third dimension—a totally new dimension in the use of the nation's water resources. That thinking, with which both sides of the House agreed, led the Government in the Committee on that legislation in 1973 to make arrangements for the Water Space Amenity Commission and to relate them directly to the National Water Council.
      The dilemma in which we now find ourselves is that the Government, for reasons best known to themselves—only a Conservative Government could do this, and it is a matter to which we shall return again and again—have decided to abolish the nationalised industry of the National Water Council, and establish in its place 10 new nationalised industries. That rate of inflation exceeds everything they have done on the economic front. So we are faced with the dilemma of how to translate what the House wanted, the meaning of the 1973 proposals to create a national Water Space Amenity Commission, in a meaningful fashion in the new 10 independent authorities.
      My hon. Friend read out the undertaking that was given by the Minister in Committee, so I shall content myself with merely referring to it. The Minister said that the use of water resources for recreation, sport and amenity was such an important matter that he would seek to protect its statutory provision in the 1973 Act. Now we have before us the Government's proposals in that regard, amendment No. 15. The Government are trying to persuade the House that, by giving sports, recreation, amenity and conservation interests representation on a consumer council for each of the regional water authorities and the Welsh water authority, they are providing an adequate substitute for the much more vigorous and direct powers of the old Water Space Amenity Commission.
      We reject the Minister's proposal, although we accept that he has made it in good faith. We do not believe that it gets anywhere near giving statutory rights to sporting, recreation and amenity bodies in the way that existed under the old WSAC arrangement. That is the principal reason why we shall be voting against the Minister's proposal and supporting the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which is a much more adequate substitute.
      Why is it proposed to eliminate WSAC from statutory provisions? How did the Government reach such a decision? We know that there was no consultation with WSAC. It was not even asked about its future. It was eliminated overnight. General Galtieri could not have done a more effective job of elimination than that which was carried out by Ministers. That is what happened to the WSAC. That has raised our suspicions and those of all concerned with sport and recreation.
      Everyone who has had any association with the WSAC will concede that it has done an outstanding job of work. I was responsible for these matters for five years while in

      197
      government and I consider that its most important achievement was to ensure, on account of its statutory provision, that every one of the 10 water authorities took recreation and sporting amenities fully into account and ensured that the legitimate interests of anglers, boaters, swimmers, campers, caravanners, preservationists and amenity bodies were safeguarded by the authorities.
      When I was a Minister I found it invaluable to be able to ask WSAC for its advice. I have in mind the attitudes of a number of water authorities but I think that they have probably changed now. However, they might persist, and it must be remembered that we are legislating for the next 50 or 100 years. We are not doing so for those who are here now. No doubt it is the Minister's hope that the Bill, when enacted, will remain on the statute book for 50 or 100 years. If his hope is fulfilled, he cannot know who will be controlling these interests in future.
      When on holiday in the south-west and the north-west I discovered lakes of considerable amenity importance that were not accessible to the public. On two pleasant occasions following two successive holidays I returned to my ministerial office and sent short, sharp messages to WSAC and the water authorities concerned to ask why lakes, which were public property and which they had the privilege of managing on behalf of the nation, had railings all around them to ensure that the public had no access to them.
      I am glad to say that in both instances action was taken very shortly after the writing of my letters. However, action in the north-west was taken only as a result of WSAC's intervention. It persuaded the regional water authority concerned that there was no danger in allowing the public access to Thirlmere and that such access was in every way justifiable. It stressed in its intervention that the public should have access both to the water resource and to the immediate gathering grounds for activities such as camping and rambling. The public had always had access for angling purposes.
      It is proposed that we should eliminate all local authority representatives from any right of membership on any of the regional water authorities. The Bill removes the rights of the ombudsman. On new clause 3, we shall be discussing the right of the press to have access to all the meetings of water authorities. We are asked to remove all these safeguards and to take it on trust from the Minister and the Government that sport and recreation will get a fair deal and that we can rest content with consumer councils providing the answer to the problem.
      As I said in Committee, it is my view that consumer councils are not a great source of satisfaction to any of us who know in practice what they can achieve. We shall have another toothless wonder which will not satisfy anglers, water skiers, ramblers, swimmers, campers, caravanners, conservation interests and countryside interests. In new clause 7 we seek to say that there should be representatives of the Countryside Commission, the English tourist board, the Sports Council and the National Anglers Council on the sort of body that we have recommended in the clause, having regard to the new type of authorities that have been created.
      I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to have a water space amenity council set up as of right by statute. Even that would give only half the provision that sportsmen and amenity interests have at present with WSAC as a national body. However, it would be better than nothing.
      198
      Statutory representation on a consumer council must, by definition, be limited. Presumably such a council will consider a range of water matters including charging, the quality of water and the efficiency of an authority in dealing, for example, with repairs. Sport and recreation interests will be only one small part of a consumer council. Let us acknowledge what the House acknowledged, that sport and recreation is a new dimension of growing importance. Its importance can never be overstated.
      The number of people with enforced leisure available to them who wish to take advantage of the opportunities that we wish them to have is growing. There are the 4 million unemployed, those who are retiring earlier because of the economic situation or from personal preference and those who have more extended holidays available to them now than ever before. This means that the leisure provision of the nation is of growing significance in its affairs. This should be reflected by establishing in every area an organisation akin to that which has been available for the past 10 years at national level.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there not a danger also that the majority within the consumer councils may be at variance with the minority view of those who are interested in recreation in areas where there are water facilities?
      Mr. Howell: That must be an obvious danger. If there are representatives on the councils of commercial interests, trade unions and consumers generally, the representatives of sport and recreation will be outnumbered. It would have been even more pertinent if my hon. Friend had said that the interests of those who are concerned about recreation will be sometimes diametrically opposed to some of the other interests that will be found represented on consumer councils. Many of the other representatives will say that the only issue that matters to them is keeping down the price of water. Some of us will be saying that it is important, even if it involves a slight extra cost, to provide services that ensure that water is used as an amenity for the whole nation. Therefore, my hon. Friend has made a pertinent point.
      5.30 pm
      I shall not labour my intervention, but I want to record my great concern on behalf of sporting and recreation interests that the Government have not acceded to our proposal that every water authority should have a water space amenity council.
      When the Government consulted on this matter, they did not consult WSAC itself. They consulted the sports bodies widely. About 200 sports bodies are members of the Sports Council. They consulted all the countryside and amenity bodies associated with the Countryside Commission. When the Government consulted all those bodies, not a single sporting, recreational or amenity organisation supported their proposals. All were largely hostile to them. We shall reflect that hostility by voting against the Government's proposals, which means that we shall vote for new clause 1, although I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will obviate the necessity to do that by telling us that he is prepared to have another think about the matters that we regard as being of considerable importance.
      Mr. Neil Thorne: I wish to speak to amendment No. 13. In Committee I expressed concern

      199
      about clause 7 as proposed because many organisations such as the National Farmers Union, which, in addition to local authorities, are entitled to nominate representatives to consumer consultative committees, are particularly concerned that water authorities would continue rejecting nominees until they were offered a name that was acceptable to them. In reply to my concern, the Minister gave two reasons why he was not willing to accept my amendment—first, that the Government were engaged in consultation on guidelines for consumer consultative committees and did not wish to pre-empt the result, and secondly, that there should be provision for water authorities to refuse a nomination if they were aware of something that made it inappropriate for the nominee to be appointed. He added that a nominated person might be in dispute with the authority. One wonders whether such a person might be an ideal person for such a committee. Perhaps the Minister was referring to a legal dispute rather than one of another nature.
      With regard to the first part of the Minister's answer, the laying down of certain general requirements by Parliament in this legislation would not appear to be inconsistent with continuing consultation on the details of the constitution and operation of consumer consultative committees. With regard to the second part of the Minister's answer, the amendment allows scope for just such an eventuality through the intervention of the Secretary of State.
      I am also concerned that the clause appears to refer specifically to the Secretary of State for the Environment rather than the Secretary of State for Trade, or, more properly, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who would be the most appropriate guardian of the public interest. I appreciate that the matter is being dealt with in haste, but I am concerned that the public, who would need to refer to those consumer consultative committees, ought to be clear that they are at arm's length and that the water authorities would not therefore be controlling them.
      I appreciate that the ultimate appeal is through the Member of Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that we already have considerable demands on our time by way of complaints against various public utility undertakings. I hope that we shall be able to try to reduce the volume of complaints that we are likely to receive by ensuring that the public are clear and satisfied with the service that is provided. Therefore, I hope that we can make it clear that there are no conflicts of interest. It would seem right and proper that the Minister for Consumer Affairs was intimately involved in the matter. That surely is what his job is all about.
      Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to re-examine my points in the interests of and in fairness to the consumer. I hope that in doing so he will be able to allay the very real fears that exist on this subject.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I was unable to hear the whole of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I believe that it was extremely substantial. I am sure that he made a convincing case.
      I shall refer in particular to new clause 1 because I fear that under the new structure we shall remove the water authorities from political sensitivity. In my part of the world the thousands of people who are interested in
      200
      angling have to travel many miles to indulge in their chosen activity. If present policies persist they will not have to travel many miles, but they will find it increasingly difficult to exercise proper political pressure to secure a higher priority for the necessary improvement of our rivers and streams.
      It is dangerous to try to establish a structure that protects a body from political pressure and insulates it from necessary sensitivity. I hope that my hon. Friend's argument, the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the obvious logic of new clause 1 will lead the Minister to look carefully at the matter.
      This week I have been looking at a recent publication by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Today I wrote to Ministers in the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which in many ways is perhaps a bigger villain in the piece than the Department of the Environment. That formidable document, which I hope will receive ministerial attention, concludes that there is already excessive secrecy in many areas of concern. If the environmental and conservation interests, with which I am heavily associated, are to fear that there will be further secrecy and greater insensitivity, the frustration and justified anger that are already felt will increase.
      Given my right hon. Friend's argument about the increase in leisure time and the need for adequate access and conservation arrangements, the conservation interests are entitled to feel that they should be given an opportunity to express adequately the real concern about secrecy and the waste of public money. That concern is clearly and formidably presented in the report.
      The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was convincing. He demonstrated the need for ministerial holidays. I am glad that his holidays were put to good use.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw)indicated assent—
      Mr. Hardy: I am glad that the Minister agrees, because this Government are more in need of a long holiday than any previous Government. The longer holidays they have, the less damage they will do.
      The situation is unsatisfactory at present. The Bill is likely to make things worse. My hon. Friend's proposal is a useful way of ameliorating the defects inherent in the Bill. I trust that the Minister will build on the remarks that he made last year, which suggested that he would take a helpful view on this matter. His remarks will be logical and consistent if he accepts my hon. Friend's proposals.
      Mr. Tony Durant: I wish to speak to amendment No. 10, dealing with representation on the water consumer committees. We are all well aware that local authorites and councillors—I speak as vice-president of the Association of District Councils—were very unhappy about the Government's proposal to change the structure of the boards. We received a great deal of correspondence and many people felt bitter about this. I do not share their view. I believe that the Government have taken the right course. It should be placed on record, however, that many councillors felt that they were doing a reasonable job on the water authorities and have now lost representation. Of course, some of them were keen, took an active interest and served the water authorities well,

      201
      although there were others, unfortunately, who did not turn up. In other cases the turnover was too rapid. Nevertheless, the background is that local authorities felt deprived of representation.
      The water authorities arose out of local government and were originally the creatures of district or borough councils. There is thus a feeling that something of the past has been cut off and local authorities feel deprived of representation. Although I do not necessarily support that view, it is important that that anxiety should be on record.
      With regard to the consumer committees, local authorities feel that instead of merely suggesting nominations, as at present proposed, they should be able to nominate to the new consumer committees as of right. This would at least increase their involvement and elected representatives could express the views of those whom they represent at consumer council level. I support that view.
      My amendment also suggests that the chairmen of consumer committees should be elected from among the members. I rather support that view. I support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) that the consumer committees should be at arm's length from the water authorities if the committees are to have any strength at all. One of the weaknesses of the gas and electricity consumer councils is that they are too close to the nationalised industries involved. I certainly favour keeping the consumer committees at arm's length.
      I tabled my amendment—I know that I cannot move it at this stage—because I believe that this aspect requires careful consideration. Local authorities feel strongly about it and the Association of District Councils asked me to table the amendment.
      I have been approached by the Reading ratepayers, who are very active in my constituency, about the rights of ratepayers to examine water authorities' accounts. Despite pressure to remove those rights, they were maintained before the latest proposal. The Government gave way on that occasion and allowed such examinations to continue so that ratepayers could make a considered judgment as to whether their money was being used wisely and carefully. The ratepayers now fear that that power is being removed. I am not sure whether that is so. Perhaps the Minister will make it clear whether the new proposals deny ratepayers the right to examine the accounts. The powers may in fact remain, but the Reading ratepayers suspect that that is not the case and have asked me to raise the matter. That is, of course, the view of most ratepayers' associations throughout the country, but the Reading group approached me as the local Member of Parliament.
      Having explained the reasons for my amendment, I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. I shall also be interested to hear his views about the examination of accounts.
      I have some sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Newham, South on the leisure aspects of the water industry. I am a member of IWAAC—the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council—so I am very much involved with the Thames and other waterways and amenities. I am also a member of the Southern Sports council, so I have a considerable interest in the points raised. I am nervous about the hon. Gentleman's proposal, however, in that he seems to be proposing another quango and I am nervous about quangos. That is why I am not entirely convinced by his argument.
      Mr. Spearing: If a quango is a quasi-autonomous national government organisation, the water authorities themselves are quangos, but surely a consumer and/or advisory committee as it were shadowing a quango cannot also be a quango.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Durant: What quangos are is a matter of opinion, although the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is certainly correct in terms of the meaning put forward by at least one of my hon. Friends. Nevertheless, all such bodies tend to breed more bodies, so I am reluctant to create another.
      Mr. Spearing: IWAAC is one.
      Mr. Durant: Yes, IWAAC is a quango of a sort, but we managed to save it. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I were both involved in saving it.
      To sum up, I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view but I am not sure that his proposal is the best way to proceed and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the new clause. The main burden of my speech, however, relates to amendment No. 10 dealing with representation. Having explained the purpose of that amendment, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) in his dislike of quangos, but he set out from an illogical position. He should have attacked the Government's proposals and suggested that the water authorities should be under democratic control. The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) would not then be necessary. Having started from the Government's proposal to set up the new quangos—the water authorities—and to remove democratically elected representation, it is important to redress the balance and to have some representation for recreational interests in the decision-making process. I am therefore happy to support my hon. Friend's proposal at this stage. If we have to put up with the Government's basic framework, it is important that recreational interests be included in the consultation process and can make their voices heard.
      The Government suggest that this could be achieved simply by setting up a consumer body and including in it one or perhaps two people representing recreational interests. The Minister cannot have thought very carefully about the problems involved, as there are major conflicts between the various recreational interests. One could not expect one person or even two people to represent all the conflicting interests. Inevitably, the person involved will have a particular background—he may have a keen interest in fishing, boating or some other aspect—but he will be expected to represent not only the groups of recreational users with which he has been associated but many others with which he is regularly and frequently in conflict about the use of resources.
      If the dialogue is to be useful, it must be a two-way process in which the recreational users can put their views to the water authority, which may in turn explain the difficulties, problems of cost or other reasons why it cannot do as much as those users wish. The conflicts between the different recreational users may be resolved through an advisory body of that nature, but it would be extremely difficult for that process to be channeled through just one or two members of a consumer body.

      203
      I cite one problem. I am continually approached by fishermen in my constituency who are most aggrieved at the loss of angling facilities. Fishermen point out the tremendous pressure in some urban areas to fill in ponds because some people can make money by doing that. They discover that their ponds disappear or that they must pay an increased rate for their use because the landowner says that he can make more money by filling it with rubbish than by fishermen stocking it with fish and fishing it.
      Fishermen find that the number of areas that they can use is being eroded. They are always looking for new ones. They can use reservoirs in the north of England, but they want more areas to use. They also point out the increasing conflict about the uses to which existing areas of water should be put. They say that there is far more competition than there used to be.
      There are now many more people who enjoy canoeing. Twenty of thirty years ago few people owned canoes in Britain. Buying canvas and plywood to make a canoe involved a good deal of pocket money and much time spent on a Saturday job. It is now much cheaper for a youngster to buy a fibreglass canoe or to make it himself. Immediately, we are faced with conflict between fishermen who do not want waters to be disturbed and someone who wants to splash about in a canoe.
      Twenty or thirty years ago it was unusual for someone to own a power boat and for the peace and quiet of a space of water to be disturbed by an outboard motor. It is now much cheaper and easier for people to go boating with such motors. The new sport of windsurfing also demands open water. All those interests want more water space and more opportunity for recreation. Far more people have far more time and money to spend on such recreations.
      There is also the conservationists' interests. They want to preserve more water space for wildlife which is not disturbed by people or noisy boats. It is extremely difficult for a water authority to reconcile all those interests. There is a danger that a water authority will simply say: "Because we are being pressed by so many conflicting recreational interests, we shall do nothing about any of them."
      One of the things that the National Water Council has managed to do in the past few years is demonstrate that conflicting interests can be reconciled. It has also enabled recreational users to have more insight into each other's problems and to encourage greater understanding and co-operation in the use of water amenities. By setting up a proper recreational users' body, such interests could be reconciled much more effectively.
      Who will campaign for more resources? That is another important subject. I regret the tendency among water authorities to give low priority to recreational interests. Some water authorities have given much more attention to public relations and saying that they are doing something for recreational users than they have to achieving something practical.
      With regard to river pollution, much could be done for anglers in the north-west if rivers such as the Mersey and the Irwell were cleaned up. Much is being done to channel effluent into sewers, but there is still occasional pollution of those rivers. The pollution is often sewage and it is often the water authorities who are to blame. Such effluent may not make the rivers much more obnoxious but a sudden shock of noxious material kills many fish. Therefore,
      204
      some rivers cannot be stocked with fish, not because the normal level of pollution is too high for them to survive but because they are occasionally killed off by shocks of pollution.
      The Government have made some play about extra money for cleaning up the Mersey, but many of my constituents want more to happen. They believe that a forceful recreational users' advisory committee could campaign far more for rivers to be cleaned up so that they may be brought back into recreational use, especially for fishermen.
      In the north-west, there are many old reservoirs that were built by water authorities in the last century. Many did not have treatment plant, so water went straight from the reservoir to the tap. Much more could be done to ensure that some of those reservoirs are brought into public use, especially for sailing and canoeing. It is now rare for water in such reservoirs to find its way straight to the tap without passing through treatment plant.
      Not only does the water authority in the north-west have substantial areas of reservoirs and rivers, it owns large tracts of moorland. It undertook in the last century to maintain clear areas of land so that water going to the reservoirs would not be polluted. Now that water is treated by cleaning plant, it is far easier to gain access to those moorland areas but large areas are still not open and access to them could be allowed.
      Water authorities are also under pressure to balance their books. The water authority in the north-west is increasingly under pressure to plant conifer trees on its land. That may increase its income but it is changing the landscape. Groups that are concerned with the conservation of wildlife are unhappy about that development. An advisory body should be able to discuss those matters.
      It used to be a tradition in the Greater Manchester area to flood land in the river valleys during the winter to take off storm water. In January and February the flooded water meadows froze over. The water was often less than a foot deep and it provided an attractive area to go skating. Most water authorities have stopped that practice.
      Far more should be done to increase recreational uses. That cannot be done by putting one or two people on a consumer body. Many interests are involved and there is bound to be conflict. The best solution is to set up an advisory body to ensure that there are regular meetings between that body and the water authority so that conflicts can be discussed and water authorities contributions to the quantity of areas for leisure amenities can be extended.
      I beg the Minister to accept the amendment. If the Government are not prepared to accept it at this stage, the subject should at least be examined carefully in the other place. I am sure that many noble Lords will want to discuss the subject at greater length. There is much interest in wildlife, conservation and recreational uses in the other place. I hope that before the Bill becomes an Act, the Government will accept the spirit of the amendment even if they do not like its present wording.
      Mr. Robert Banks: Water authorities have a uniquely important role in recreation. I wish to speak in support of the broad aims of new clause 1.
      Recreation involves a wide range of sports, activities and amenity groups. Each of those groups generally forms itself either into an association or a club. They are enthusiasts. It is vital that they should be enabled to be in

      205
      close contact with water authorities. By being members of a recreational committee, their influence as a spur to water authorities to improve amenities, and as a body that receives information from water authorities, would be enhanced. As often as not, it is the lack of communication between people and authority that can lead to misunderstandings and difficulties. The advantage of having committees of people drawn from groups, associations and bodies that are especially knowledgeable, and have their feet on the ground, would be of great importance in cutting through any areas of misunderstanding between their objectives and those of the water authorities.
      6 pm
      In many parts of Britain the water authorities have done a good job. For instance reservoirs that have been opened for fishing have produced a marvellous amenity. I could not conceive of a reservoir where fishing had been introduced being closed because it had not been fully utilised. Membership of some of the reservoir fishing clubs has to be restricted because of the large numbers of people wishing to fish. But in some areas reservoirs are lying idle and have not been opened up to sport. If the committees are established they could draw the attention of water authorities to the opportunities that could be developed to give more people a better chance to enjoy themselves in the country.
      I shall listen with great care to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I hope that he will consider the position of those who have colossal enthusiasm and wish to play a part in developing recreation in Britain. It is those who will be of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall speak briefly to new clauses 1 and 7. As the Bill proceeded through Committee, we were told that the Government's objective was a more efficient water industry. My hon. Friends and I must ask ourselves, at what price? That is what the debate is about. The traditional industry, is being transformed from a public service into a profit-making exercise, perhaps pending privatisation. The Minister and his hon. Friends have concluded that the previous arrangement of WSAC was an encumberance—an obstruction to profitability in the industry—which is why it is being so ruthlessly phased out.
      Consultation with various bodies, which was provided for in the water industry as it has traditionally existed, is being removed—whether it be with local authority representatives on the water authorities, the ombudsman or the press. In this debate, I am concerned with the body that has taken upon itself the responsibility to guard the nation's interests in recreational water facilities. The new clauses would create regional WSACs. That is being done in the spirit to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in 1973 referred as the third dimension. That was also referred to by the Opposition. The third dimension in 1973 related to water recreation, wildlife sports—including angling and fishing—skiing, canoeing, sailing, diving, adventure holidaying and water conservation—all areas in which it could be seen that the public would have a recreational interest.
      The public's great fear about the Bill is that the Government are no longer sensitive about those issues, but are preoccupied with ensuring that water authorities make profits irrespective of the wider public interest. The
      206
      Opposition wish to establish who will assume those responsibilities. The Government's amendments deal only partly with that because it seeks only to place on consumer committees those who are likely to use water or land associated with water for recreational purposes. That is a sop—an inadequate substitute for what has traditionally existed. As I said when I intervened earlier, we are deeply concerned that the representation of recreation on the consumer committees will be outvoted and dominated by other interests.
      When the Minister replies, he should direct himself directly to that matter. It is his role to convince the House that those interests, as they have been traditionally represented, will be equally represented by the two persons serving on the proposed consumer committees.
      The new clauses recognise the need for the widest form of representation, whether that be the Countryside Commission and its members with an interest in the protection of the countryside; the English tourist board that has a traditional interest in exploiting water resources for tourist purposes; the Sports Council, which will be represented because of its interest in water-related sporting activities; the local authorities that will be represented for obvious reasons or the anglers who must have a direct interest. My constituency and those of two members of the Cabinet form part of the British lakeland in Cumbria. I hope that they want the most effective representation of angling groups. Perhaps excluded—but I am sure that the spirit is embodied in the new clauses—are the representatives of the national park planning boards and the Lake District planning board.
      All those organisations have a real interest in an area that has traditionally been the responsibility of the WSAC. We want the WSAC to be replaced by regional WSACs that have exactly the same responsibilities. They must have equal access to Ministers so that the voice of the recreational consumer in the national parks and urban areas can be heard clearly. Millions of people from urban areas annually descend upon the national parks and their voices must not he stifled by the commercial interests that will dominate the inadequate consumer councils proposed by the Government.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: We have had a substantial debate about various aspects of recreation. It is an important area, and I understand why right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The water authorities operate in large measure within the terms of reference laid down, and unaltered, in the 1973 Act. Section 20 makes it clear that they have a duty that they must discharge. It requires them
      "to take such steps as are reasonably practicable for putting their rights to the use of water and of any land associated with water to the best use for those purposes."
      Those purposes are the importance of recreation and amenity. They must discharge that duty, which is in no way altered by the provisions of the Bill.
      We are debating the appropriate arrangements for consumers and whether I can satisfy the House that arrangements for those who use recreational facilities will be provided. In that context, the Government put down amendment No. 15, which defines consumers as those persons who participate in recreation. The amendment triggers clause 7, which allows duties to be imposed to make provision for consumers in the water authorities, including the consumers of recreation.

      207
      In Committee I quoted from a letter that I received from the chairman of the South-West regional water authority, who was writing on behalf of all other water authority chairmen. He committed them to national consultation with national recreational and sporting bodies. A recreational and amenity advisory committee will be formed within the proposed association of water authorities, which will provide a forum of discussion with the recreational and sporting bodies as and when a need for such meetings is identified.
      This is not WSAC in another guise. Hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to WSAC's substantial contribution but the fact that WSAC would be wound up by the Bill shows that in large measure WSAC has done its job. That was to ensure that the recreational potential for water authorities should be properly and fully developed. In the period of about 10 years in which WSAC operated under the ambit of the Water Act 1973, that duty has been largely discharged. The water authorities agree that there should be consultation at the national level.
      Hon. Members are anxious, especially the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who moved new clause 1, about the Committee's intention to consult bodies connected with conservation, in respect of which water authorities are under a duty under section 22 of the 1973 Act. Given the importance widely attributed to nature conservation, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), the House will welcome the linkage at the national level.
      I also said in Committee that in all regional water authority areas it was intended to include sport and recreation committees to establish links at the regional level with sporting organisations. Amendment No. 15 will allow that to be done within the ambit of clause 7, which will provide that adequate arrangements must be made for consulting consumers and that the Secretary of State must approve such arrangements before they can be implemented. In our opinion that is the correct place for the amendment. Those who use recreational facilities are consumers with a special interest. Amendment No. 15 emphasises that the special interests of those consumers will be catered for by the water authorities when they prepare their report and arrangements under clause 7.
      Mr. Alec Jones: If by accepting amendment No. 15, we somehow strengthen representation on the consumer councils, how is it that consumer councils in Wales, before the amendment was tabled, could have fishing, recreational and amenity interests on those bodies?
      Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman raised a similar point in Committee. The legislation under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales acted in the intermediate period will subsumed by clause 7. Together, the two provisions will provide that wealth of consumer consultation so beloved by the Welsh.
      Unlike new clauses 1 and 7, our amendment does not provide for the establishment of new bodies. We do not think it appropriate to spell out in detail in primary legislation the committees and their constitutions that are necessary to meet the needs as they are perceived today. Needs vary over time and there is a substantial variation
      208
      in the requirements of individual regional water authorities and their consumers, ranging from very small authorities to very large ones.
      We intend to ensure that water authorities establish committees at regional level. In that way, we could provide linkage with the sport and recreational bodies for which Opposition Members are asking. The water authorities will be required to do so and they will be required to submit proposals to be endorsed by the Secretary of State. That will ensure that the guidelines that we have already circulated for comment, when they are finally submitted and approved, will ensure that the water authorities appoint specific recreation committees that will also deal with conservation issues and ensure that they are consistently applied under each regional water authority.
      I say to the hon. Member for Newham, South, who moved new clause 1, that I accept the need to make a more specific commitment to the process of handling recreational and amenity issues at regional level. The correct way to do that is in a manner consistent with the consultation process with consumers rather than by the establishment by primary legislation of a range of bodies such as he proposes.
      6.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) sought reassurance about nominations to water authorities' consumer consultative committees. I agree that in principle water authorities should appoint to their consumer consultative committees those who are nominated by the relevant bodies and that the water authorities should not exercise their own preference. We shall make that point clear in the final version of the consumer guidelines.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) asked about local representation. In the same way, it would be appropriate for local authorities to accept the nominee representatives who are proposed. District councils will have on the consultative committees a representative for each district that comes within the operating division of the water authority so they will constitute a substantial number of those who are entitled to serve on the consultative committees. We have not specified in the consultation document whether those representatives should be a majority. However, I imagine that about half the membership will be drawn from local authorities. I also assure my hon. Friend that there will be no change in the ratepayers' right to examine a cut.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South asked about joint approval of the system of joint consultative committees. I agree that it is appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, and the Minister for Consumer Affairs in particular, should agree the final proposals for consumer consultative committees. We shall therefore discuss the proposals with him and he will share in their approval. He should also share in the approval of individual proposals for each regional authority which will emanate from clause 7 when that becomes part of the Bill.
      The House should not accept new clauses in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, South, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). The proposals that we have made take on board the fact that undertakings should be both taken and delivered that in executing their statutory duties under sections 20 and 22 of the 1973 Act, the regional authorities should set up a structure which reflects at the national level

      209
      a commitment to consult recreational, amenity and conservation bodies and, at regional level, a separate consultative committee to deal with regional variations of the same bodies. By making that recommendation in our consumer consultative guidelines, we would be separating sport, recreation and conservation from the wide range of issues that would normally be on the agenda of such consumer consultative committees.
      Mr. Durant: My hon. Friend answered my point about representation, but I should be grateful if he would clarify it again. Can each local authority in the area covered by the consumer consultative committee make a nomination that might be accepted, or will each authority have a nomination to the committee by right? There is a slight difference of emphasis.
      Mr. Shaw: I remind my hon. Friend that the consumer consultative committees are still in draft proposal form. However, it is intended that each committee should be drawn from an area comparable to a water authority division, and within that committee each district council that is represented in the division should have a representative on that committee. The nominations may come from bodies other than individual district councils, such as an association of local authorities, but my purpose in answering my hon. Friend's point was to accept that it would be wrong for water authorities to be selective about local authority representation. Unless there are special reasons, they should normally accept the recommendation of the local authority or the association of local authorities. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's query.
      My final point, in recommending that the House should accept amendment No. 15 and not the new clauses, is that in understanding what the hon. Member for Newham, South is trying to do, I reiterate that we can and should provide both separation and commitment from local authorities to the recreational, amenity and conservation bodies at regional and national level. It does not require a major addition to this legislation. It requires proper interpretation of the powers in clause 7. It is our final intention that the guidelines to be issued under that clause will provide much of the contact and the commitment that the hon. Gentleman seeks in his amendment.
      Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for the great compliment of not dissenting in principle from anything that I said in my speech. I regard his silence on the wide range of matters as a compliment, although he did not make it explicit. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for their support, and the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), who supported my sentiments. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred to the distinct nature of the Lake District. My proposed new clause contains a flexible constitution. As in the Lake District, where the interests of climbers or walkers on land owned by regional water authorities are taken into account, there is provision for such representation on what I still believe are necessary regional advisory committees. Of course, that representation varies from one part of Britain to another, which is one reason why we need separate and specific legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) helpfully put his finger on a matter that I should have emphasised more in my opening remarks. That is that
      210
      the non-dirty water, clean water consumers—the recreation, navigation and conservation interests—are not an interest as a whole but have inbuilt tensions and competition among them. Only in the form that we advocate can they learn to live together and come to a common approach whereby the total value of water space can be enhanced by the minimum contribution of money. After discussing and learning together they can say to the water authority, "We disagree on this, but in general we have come to these conclusions." That process of constant consultation, backed by the statutory duties of providing recommendations and giving advice, alone will provide the results that the Minister believes that he can obtain from his solution. It cannot be done in his way.
      The Minister said that sections 20 and 22 provide the statutory responsibilities. Of course they do, but how are they to be exercised? That is the fundamental question. The hon. Gentleman referred to his speech of 9 December and to the letter from the chairman of the South-West regional water authority. The letter stated that, at regional level, the Government would expect to include in all regional water authority areas sport and recreation committees appointed by the new authorities. That is fine up to a point, but although the Minister mentioned wider interests in his speech, sport and recreation—important though they are—are only part of the total amenity picture. I hope that the non-statutory committees will go wider than that. If they do not, they cannot comprehend, discuss and agree upon the inevitable conflicts that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North pointed out so eloquently.
      Even if the committees are established on a regional basis, they will be inadequate. The Minister offered some movement in that direction and said that the guidelines, which we have not yet seen, will require such committees. He went on to say in reply to the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) that, in addition to a committee for sport, recreation, amenity and conservation—if it is extended that far—there will be regional consumer groups for other matters. There will be difficulties in that proposal, especially if there are guidelines.
      As the Minister has not gone far enough on this matter of principle, and as I have received so much support from all those bodies, and as the central body is being dissolved—the Minister glossed over the central non-statutory machinery—we must protect the interests of the public, who own the water facilities and who have the right to be consulted about their use. On those grounds, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support new clause 1.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 277.

      Division No. 41]

      [6.27 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Adams, Allen

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Allaun, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Alton, David

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

      Anderson, Donald

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Buchan, Norman

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Ian

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beith, A. J.

      Cant, R. B.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cartwright, John

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

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      211

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

      Lambie, David

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

      Lamond, James

      Cohen, Stanley

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Leighton, Ronald

      Conlan, Bernard

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Cowans, Harry

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Crawshaw, Richard

      McCartney, Hugh

      Crowther, Stan

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

      McKelvey, William

      Davidson, Arthur

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      McMahon, Andrew

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McWilliam, John

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

      Marks, Kenneth

      Deakins, Eric

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dewar, Donald

      Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

      Dixon, Donald

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Dobson, Frank

      Maxton, John

      Dormand, Jack

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Douglas, Dick

      Meacher, Michael

      Dubs, Alfred

      Mikardo, Ian

      Dunnett, Jack

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Eastham, Ken

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

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

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

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

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      English, Michael

      Morton, George

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Newens, Stanley

      Ewing, Harry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Faulds, Andrew

      Ogden, Eric

      Field, Frank

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Fitch, Alan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Flannery, Martin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Palmer, Arthur

      Ford, Ben

      Park, George

      Forrester, John

      Parker, John

      Foster, Derek

      Parry, Robert

      Foulkes, George

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Pendry, Tom

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Penhaligon, David

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Pitt, William Henry

      Golding, John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Graham, Ted

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Race, Reg

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Radice, Giles

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

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Richardson, Jo

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Haynes, Frank

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

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

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

      Robertson, George

      Home Robertson, John

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Homewood, William

      Rooker, J. W.

      Hooley, Frank

      Roper, John

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Howells, Geraint

      Sandelson, Neville

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Sever, John

      Huckfield, Les

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Silverman, Julius

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Skinner, Dennis

      John, Brynmor

      Snape, Peter

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Soley, Clive

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Kerr, Russell

      Stoddart, David

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      212

      Strang, Gavin

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Straw, Jack

      Whitlock, William

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

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

      Thomas, Dr R (Carmarthen)

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

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

      Tinn, James

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Torney, Tom

      Winnick, David

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Woodall, Alec

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Wright, Sheila

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Wardell, Gareth

      Wellbeloved, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Michael

      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

      White, Frank R.

      Mr. Peter Hardy.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Alexander, Richard

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Ancram, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Arnold, Tom

      Dykes, Hugh

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Eggar, Tim

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

      Elliott, Sir William

      Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Banks, Robert

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Bendall, Vivian

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Farr, John

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Best, Keith

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Blackburn, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Blaker, Peter

      Fox, Marcus

      Body, Richard

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bowden, Andrew

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bright, Graham

      Gorst, John

      Brinton, Tim

      Gow, Ian

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Brotherton, Michael

      Greenway, Harry

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Grieve, Percy

      Browne, John (Winchester)

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

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Buck, Antony

      Grist, Ian

      Budgen, Nick

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Butcher, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hannam, John

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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Hastings, Stephen

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hawksley, Warren

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

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Heddle, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Henderson, Barry

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cockeram, Eric

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Colvin, Michael

      Hill, James

      Cope, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Corrie, John

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hooson, Tom

      Critchley, Julian

      Hordern, Peter

      Crouch, David

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

      213

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Renton, Tim

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rossi, Hugh

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Rost, Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lamont, Norman

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lang, Ian

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lee, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shersby, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Silvester, Fred

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sims, Roger

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Smith, Dudley

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Loveridge, John

      Speed, Keith

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Speller, Tony

      McCrindle, Robert

      Spence, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      MacGregor, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Sproat, Iain

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Squire, Robin

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

      Stainton, Keith

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Major, John

      Stanley, John

      Marland, Paul

      Steen, Anthony

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Stevens, Martin

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Mather, Carol

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Stokes, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mellor, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moate, Roger

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trippier, David

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trotter, Neville

      Moore, John

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Morgan, Geraint

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Viggers, Peter

      Murphy, Christopher

      Waddington, David

      Myles, David

      Wakeham,John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Neubert, Michael

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Newton, Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

      Walters, Dennis

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Ward, John

      Osborn, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Watson, John

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Wells, Bowen

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Parris, Matthew

      Wheeler, John

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Whitney, Raymond

      Pawsey, James

      Wilkinson, John

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Wolfson, Mark

      Pollock, Alexander

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Porter, Barry

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Mr. Donald Thompson and

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Mr. David Hunt.

      Rathbone, Tim

      Question accordingly negatived.

    NEW Clause 3

      RIGHT OF ACCESS BY THE MEDIA
      'The provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission of Press to Meetings) Bill shall apply to the meetings of the Welsh Water Authority and each regional water authority in England.'—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 31.
      Mr. Howell: New clause 3, dealing with the right of access by the press to meetings of the water authorities, is of considerable importance. That right has been historic, traditional and of considerable importance for many years, not just to the press but to the public interest as a whole. The Government propose to remove that right of access not just to meetings, but to papers and the thinking of managerial and scientific advisers in the industry. We are amazed at the breathtaking character of that proposition.
      Most water authorities derive their undertakings from local government. For the past 100 years the press has had access to essential information and to the managerial decisions and policy considerations involved. We must consider whether that traditional access has been of any importance. The only answer is that it has been of overwhelming importance, especially during the nine years since the passing of the Water Act 1973.
      The elimination of the press from water authority meetings should not be considered in isolation from other proposals in the Bill. We must also have regard to the fact that every local authority in the land will have its elected local representatives eliminated from the membership of water authorities. In addition, every regional water authority will no longer be accountable to the ombudsman in his investigation of any abuses that are brought to his attention by customers or local citizens. Indeed, because the Government propose to eliminate local councillors and access to the ombudsman, the press will be the only effective presence available at water authority meetings. That makes media access even more important and vital than has previously been the case.
      As a substitute to this great democratic safeguard that we have always enjoyed, the Government propose a cosy round-up of information to be provided by the water authority chairmen at the conclusion of each principal meeting. Of course, the press and, therefore, the public, will be told only of issues and matters that the chairmen and authority members bring to their attention. What a ludicrous proposition.
      The essence of our democratic system is that the weight of public pressure can make itself felt. Such public campaigns and pressure can be educated, informed and effective as a result of the information available before the meetings take place. Most of us would agree that the greatest weakness of all in the nationalised industries—this applies to gas, electricity and the Post Office as well as to water—is that the consumer council system, on which the Government are now choosing to rely, has in practice proved totally inadequate in generating public interest and creating legitimate public pressure. That is something about which we must be concerned.

      215
      6.45 pm
      Let me name a few of the issues about which the public should be informed so that there can be proper debate and so that sensible pressures can be brought to bear on water authority members. These are issues in respect of which total access to information by the press is of considerable importance. There is the strategic planning of our water resources. Any hon. Member who has been a Minister in the Department of the Environment knows perfectly well that there are now various means by which additional water supplies can be made available for the benefit of consumers. It should be remembered that when we talk about the water cycle—the provision of water, its use, its clean-up and its return to the system—we are talking about a time scale of not less than 20 years.
      Once an alternative Government are in office and are pursuing policies to get the economy moving again, we shall need more water to sustain industrial recovery. Water authorities such as Severn-Trent will then have to decide whether to build additional reservoirs or whether to transfer water by the river basin system from areas of plenty to areas of scarcity. That very problem confronted me at the time of the great drought, but it is now relevant to hon. Members who represent Wales and who are concerned about the pricing policy of the water authorities. A third option, which a Select Committee in another place reported on last week and seems to favour, is the provision of additional water using the bore-hole system.
      Such matters are of importance to water authorities, be they in Wales or the English regions. Many people have differing views about such matters. For example, every time it is proposed to build a new reservoir in the middle of Dartmoor, concern is expressed by amenity groups, conservationists and others. That is the first of the great issues that should be argued publicly from day one. The moment an engineer proposes to build a reservoir, extract water from a river system or obtain water by boring, the public are entitled to a say. They have legitimate opinions to express not only on the practicality and cost of such proposals but on the amenity considerations. Strategic planning is, therefore, of cardinal importance.
      Nowhere in the Bill are we told who is to be responsible nationally for strategic planning. We are abolishing the National Water Council but nothing has yet been put in its place. One can only assume that either it is to be left to the Thames water authority separately to make what it can of national strategic planning needs or it will all be done in Whitehall by the Ministry, which thinks it knows better than anyone else. The Minister should tell us what he proposes or else the press will be left to ferret around, as they certainly will, members and employees of regional water undertakings. It is much better to be open with them, give them all the information, and let them have access rather than have them ferreting round because from my experience the results of that are likely to be more embarrassing to Ministers.
      The second point to which I draw attention is the importance of pricing policies. The average water bill for each household is about £65. We hear a lot of argument about it but when we think about not having clean water and adequate sewerage arrangements available, which might be the case next week, we realise what good value for money the £65 per annum is. There are very few issues that have been more emotive in recent years than the increasing price of water. We know many of the reasons. Often people equate the cost of the supply of water,
      216
      sewerage and drainage services with what was previously a bill for only one of those processes, the supply of water. Whatever view one takes about the cost of water it is of considerable public interest and there should be full access to information and to the discussions within water authorities.
      Under the same heading of pricing policies, the relationship between the capitalisation of the undertaking and the revenue implications of those capital undertakings which affect pricing is also of great importance.
      I turn to the abuse of power. No one can deny that during the nine years of the existence of the Water Act there have been occasions when the press have thought it right to report what they believed to be abuses by bureaucracy concerning the water industry. Many illustrations immediately come to mind. I do not think it will be challenged that abuses have existed and have been brought to our attention by the press, which does a great public service, enabling Members of Parliament to table questions. We would not have known about many of these matters had it not been for the vigilance of the press, particularly the local press, in reporting them. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of press comments which we did not like often had cause to smart. In our more sober and rational moments we appreciate that it is vital in a democratic system that the press should have access to meetings.
      I was astonished that one of the reasons given by the Government for terminating the right of access by the press should have been that advantage had not always been taken of the right and that the press had not turned up at every meeting. We must be honest and admit that that is true. The press does not turn up at every meeting of Committees of the House. Although we are safeguarding its interests, it is not particularly plentiful in its presence now. That is not the issue. The point is that it knows in advance what a committee will be discussing and it has the right to attend if it wishes. It must make a judgment. We cannot expect newspapers to send reporters to every meeting of every public authority to which they have the right of access. It would be economically impossible. To suggest that we eliminate the right because it is not exercised at every sub-committee meeting in the land is such a nonsensical proposition that I am amazed it was ever put forward.
      Health standards are of vital importance. There is also the question of wage negotiation and industrial relations about which I will say nothing because that will be the subject of the next batch of amendments. When a water authority takes up an attitude on wages and industrial relations, the press should have the right to be there to present the information to the public. Another important matter to be dealt with by water authorities, is sport and recreation policy. Again, I will not elaborate on that because we have just had a debate about it.
      Originally these matters were brought to our attention by the Guild of British Newspapers Editors. Most of us are indebted to it for this example of its vigilance in examining Government proposals. In the press release issued on 11 January, the guild says that having looked at what the Government said in Committee it has no reason to change its fundamental objection to the proposals. The guild draws attention to what the Prime Minister said in her maiden speech in 1960 when she introduced the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Bill. We would like to reinstitute those provisions in relation to water authorities;

      217
      although Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, has not selected that amendment I think I may refer to it. The Prime Minister quoted the following words:
      "Publicity is the greatest and most effective check against any arbitrary action."—[Official Report, 5 February, 1960; Vol 616, c. 1351.]
      All that any one can say to that is amen.
      At Question Time today, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked the Prime Minister why, when she had introduced that Bill which she wished to apply to everybody, she was now against the principle in respect of water authorities. The Prime Minister said it was because water authorities would be different under this Bill. If I took down correctly what she said, she said that they will now be executive bodies. Of course, that is our great objection to the whole of the Bill. It seeks to remove the water industry from the democratic process and to turn water authorities into executive bodies. I can only say in response to the Prime Minister's reply, "game, set and match." The Prime Minister conceded the whole of our case against the principle of the Bill. Local authority is being butchered. The Prime Minister did not put it in that way but that is what she meant. Local democracy is being butchered and executive control is being substituted for it.
      The Guild of British Newspapers Editors also tells us that the size of the authority ought to have nothing to do with the principle of admission and points out that regional health authorities are no bigger or no smaller but roughly the same size as the proposed water authorities. It regards the voluntary code of practice as
      "a shabby substitute for a legally established right of access".
      That is something with which all hon. Members must agree.
      Labour Members have not tabled new clause 3 for purely political advantage, although I hope that there will be some political advantage in seeking to secure the democratic rights of the British people and the traditional rights of access for the press. We are interested in the essential question how we should govern the affairs of national industries—particularly in one where it is proposed that 10 boards will operate where previously there was only one authority—with regard to access information for the press and the need, indeed, the duty, to stimulate the right sort of public discussion arising out of such information being readily and freely available to the media. That right, which has existed since the beginning of the water industry 100 years ago, should be maintained. It is a disgrace that the Government are proposing to eliminate it and we shall most certainly be pressing new clause 3 to a Division this evening.
      7 pm
      Mr. John Spence: I shall not delay the House for more than a minute or two in speaking on new clause 3, which I support. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will remember that, during proceedings on the Water Bill in 1973, which was piloted through the House by Sir Graham Page—when I did a small bag-carrying job for him—we had considerable difficulty in getting the House to accept the admission of the press to water authorities' meetings. It was achieved only by the great efforts of Sir Graham Page. That was a battle which Conservative Members fought to win.
      I am disappointed that the Minister—who is not only a Minister but a friend—should see fit not to accept the
      218
      remonstrations that have been made both in Committee and elsewhere to include the right of the press to attend water authorities' meetings. It is no answer to the points made to refer to such bodies as the Central Electricity Generating Board or the National Coal Board or such area institutions. Those bodies were established a long time ago and certain aspects of their activities would be subject to the surveillance of the press if we were creating such bodies now. Nor do I regard with favour the exclusion of the press when the activities of the new water authorities are described as being executive and are not subject to the ombudsman's jurisdiction. That is a step backwards, not forwards. The water authorities are rate-levying bodies and people have the right to be represented.
      I ask the Minister to consider carefully what he is doing and not to be subverted on the way but to stand up and fight for the right of the press to attend the meetings of bodies which are charging people rates. He will know from his constituency postbag that such matters are the subject of considerable correspondence and dissatisfaction. I see nothing in the Bill which will remove that.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome, as I am sure all hon. Members will, the forthright and succinct speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence). No doubt he shares a water authority with the Minister. They both represent constituencies in Yorkshire. The Minister should listen to the sound common sense of a fellow Yorkshireman on this occasion.
      The advice of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is firmly planted in the traditions set by the Prime Minister in 1960 when she moved her private Member's Bill—the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Bill. In her maiden speech she dispensed with all the customary formalities about the beauties of Finchley and got straight down to business, moving the Second Reading of her Bill. In doing so the right hon. Lady was forthright and clear. In addition to what was quoted earlier by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), she said:
      "I do not know whether hon. Members generally appreciate the total amount of money spent by local authorities."
      She then went on to give the figure of £1,400 million a year for England and Wales. How times have changed. The Prime Minister went on to say:
      "Those sums are not insignificant, even in terms of national budgets. Less than half is raised by ratepayers' money and the rest by taxpayers' money, and the first purpose in admitting the Press is that we may know how those moneys are being spent."
      That is surely right. To remove that from an industry that is spending large sums of money that are raised by direct levy, by direct precept upon the British ratepayers, is indefensible.
      The Prime Minister went on to use the words that have already been quoted. In doing so, she was quoting, topically enough, from the Franks report, although on a different subject from the current one. It was:
      "Publicity is the greatest and most effective check against any arbitrary action."
      She went on to say:
      "That is one of the fundamental rights of the subject"— [Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1350ߝ1].
      Yet here we have one of her Ministers coming before the House asking hon. Members to remove the effect of her legislation from this important area of activity. It is impossible to find any justification for that.
      The first people to notice the damage that would be done were not only the newspaper editors but the local authorities. I have had correspondence from local

      219
      authorities in my constituency, not of any particular party political persuasion but a mixture of independent and party political councillors, expressing their strong objection to the removal of the press from meetings of a body which will be able to levy rates through the rates machinery on their ratepayers. They have become accustomed to the fact that they must be subject to the scrutiny of the press at all their meetings. It sometimes irks them when they are criticised but they accept it as part of the democratic process. They do not see why a body with the powers and financial resources of the water authority should be free from such public scrutiny.
      I cannot understand why the Government should want to exclude the press. Can it be that the embarrassment that was caused when some local authority decisions were shown by the press to be ludicrous and extravagant has built up in the Department of the Environment a feeling that we should protect water authorities from such criticism and scrutiny in the future? The uncovering by the press of abuses and waste in the water authorities was a major and necessary public service.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the answer might simply be that it is for the same reason that the board of ICI or Courtaulds would not allow representatives of the press access to their meetings?
      Mr. Beith: They have similar misgivings and reservations, but the boards of ICI and Courtaulds are not spending the money that the ordinary British ratepayer has to pay in water rates. That is levied upon them and is not the same as the choice to buy a company's products or shares. A body that can levy rates upon the British people, that is not elected by them and to which the press has no access, is in an indefensibly protected position. Therefore, it will be likely to behave badly. If such protection is built up around a public body, some of the most important safeguards against unwise, extravagant and careless action are removed.
      In answering my question this afternoon the Prime Minister's reason for excluding the new water authorities from the purview of her legislation was that these are to be executive bodies. That is a bogus argument. Hon. Members and the British people, both in local authorities are elsewhere, are concerned about the authorities precisely because of the executive power that they will be able to exercise. They are not merely executive bodies, but policy-making bodies. They will make policies over whole areas of activity and decide how to spend large sums of money. It is the same sort of responsibility as local authorities exercise, and it should be subject to public scrutiny and accountability. The members should be elected and not appointed by the Minister. At the very least, there should be proper public scrutiny of such power. To say that we are talking about executive bodies is to dismiss the range of their responsibilities or to imply that, due to the nature of their power, they are somehow entitled to be protected from press scrutiny.
      Underlying the Bill is the Minister's philosophy about the new shape of the water industry. It appears that both he and the Prime Minister mean that under the new system the members of water authorities will not have any powers but will do as the Minister says. They are appointed by the Minister, so they will go away and do exactly what they are told. They will make no decisions of any consequence,
      220
      so there is no point in sending a lot of journalists along to report an authority's meeting, when the only subject of debate will be what the Minister has told it to do and how the members should set about doing it.
      If that is the Minister's view of the water industry he should come clean and tell us so. He should make it clear that hon. Members will be able to ask questions about every activity of every regional water authority. The Minister will be making the policy decisions and the authority members will be his executive servants, like civil servants who work behind the counter in local DHSS offices. Let us get the picture clear and understand the type of parliamentary accountability that is implied.
      However, if the bodies are to enjoy—as the Act implies—considerable autonomy and freedom to plan expenditure and to make policy decisions, they will then behave like any local authority, with money raised in the same way. Therefore, they should be subject to the same scrutiny as local authorities. If they are not, the worst abuses will follow. I cannot see how the Government can possibly defend their stance tonight by seeking to exclude such bodies from proper press scrutiny.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The fiction is that, after the Bill's passage, water authorities will be purely executive businesses, and will not need press surveillance. However, that is entire fiction.
      Let us consider some of the policy-making functions—as opposed to the pure business functions—to be carried out by water authorities. We must ask ourselves whether the press should monitor the arguments and discussions that eventually result in policy decisions. Unless the press monitor them, the public will be inadequately informed about them and unable to bring pressure to bear to influence them. The provision of recreational facilities involves the admission of the public to or exclusion of the public from, reservoirs and their surrounding land. It also involves expenditure, and a decision about how much should be spent. Those are not business or executive matters, but policy issues. They are political issues, with a small "p".
      The folly of direct billing has resulted in an increase in total costs to the consumer and in a significant increase in the office space demanded by water authorities. That space is paid for not only by consumers, but by those who are connected neither to the water mains nor to the sewers. They are paid for through a tax imposed by the water authority. Environmental service charges are nothing more or less than a tax, and I do not agree with the principle of an entirely nominated body imposing taxation. The Minister's argument is that it represents only a small proportion of the total cost. We have heard that argument before. It is said that it is only a small baby, as if the principle is any different. Of course the principle is in no way different.
      7.15 pm
      We should have gone in the other direction and set up directly elected water authorities. The system of indirect nomination by local authorities has been a failure, because their members have not considered themselves accountable to the local authorities that appointed them. However, the Bill calls for more, not less, press monitoring. We should be clear about that. In theory, local authority nominees used to have a majority on the board, even if

      221
      they never really chose to exercise their power, and like others who do not choose to exercise their power, in the fullness of time lost it, and bewailed its loss too late.
      Our only recourse will be, as Members of Parliament, to ask the Minister to dismiss the chairman and members of the board. The Minister has made a rod for his own back. In future, he will be very busy. As the only source of remedy, he will rightly be at the receiving end of all the criticism. After all, he has written into the Bill that the powers will fall on his shoulders through elected Members of Parliament. There is no other avenue of redress, so the Minister and his successors will have a busy time.
      The clause is essential because of the political—with a small "p"—decisions that the body will take. For example, how much will be spent on new and lavish headquarters and on staff perks, such as new motor cars, paid for by the consumer, who has no redress? Will that be concealed from the public who pay for it? Alternatively, will the arguments take place in the presence of the press and the media? They must do so.
      My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues are fond of saying that there is a parallel with the gas industry. However, someone who is not connected to the gas supply does not pay any gas bills. Therefore, there is no analogy, and my hon. Friend should be well aware of that. Similarly, the extent of flood prevention work is a political decision. The Minister may say that such subjects are for the decision of land drainage committees. That may be so, but the resources at the disposal of the land drainage committees will be provided by a body whose members are not appointed by elected bodies.
      Once again, everyone will have to look to the Minister for redress. I foresee an even busier future for him in my crystal ball. What arguments could be advanced against a press presence? We know the type of argument that will be advanced. It will be said that a merely executive business is involved. However, that argument is not tenable, because it does not accord with the facts. That is why I shall vote for the new clause, which is not only excellent, but vital in the public interest.
      Mr. Peter Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on his succinct argument, and on clarifying the matter for all of us. I also congratulate him and his hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) on having the courage to say that they disagree with the proposals in the Bill and intend to vote accordingly. This is one matter that is more important than the views of the Government Whips' Office, and the issue on which the House, above all, should be prepared to stand up and say that it believes in the principle of democracy and accountability. Part of that principle is open access to the meetings of public bodies such as the one that we are discussing in this amendment.
      Just over a decade ago those of us who served on the late lamented local authorities campaigned in various ways against the 1972 Local Government Act. On my local authority there was general unity among the three political parties. We all felt that the Act would not help local democracy, and that the creation of the new and bigger authorities would make local democracy a thing of the past and create bureaucratic and remote bodies. Regardless of our party allegiances, we should all now be inclined to say that that is what happened.
      222
      Immediately after the 1972 Act was put on the statute book, the previous Conservative Government embarked on the wild gamble of amalgamations, changes and new bodies. One of the gambles was the creation of the regional water authorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who knows more about these matters than I do, said earlier that the price of water is about £65 per household, which he said could be regarded as a bargain. Water is, after all, an essential part of life and if that is a reasonable and legitimate price, we all accept that that is the price that it is necessary to pay. However, I know that that price is considerably in excess of the price of water at the time that the regional water authorities were formed. I would hazard a guess that, compared to the rise in the rate of inflation since the mid-1970s, the price of water has increased fairly dramatically.
      As the hon. Member for Tiverton said, part of the aftermath of the creation of water authorities was separate billing. I agree with him that no one will ever convince me that the adoption of such a procedure did not lead to an increase in administrative staff. As the hon. Member also pointed out, it led to an increase in the somewhat palatial headquarters of the water authorities, not the least the Severn-Trent water authority, which more or less covers my constituency.
      Many of the excesses of the Severn-Trent authority became public knowledge through the activities of local and evening newspapers covering the area. It seems to me that the new bodies will be concerned to exclude newspapers so that embarrassing news can be covered up. However, without the activities of the newspapers in my constituency and in the Severn-Trent water authority area, many of the things that have come to light would not have done so.
      Reference has already been made to the fact that the present water authorities will be replaced by these executive bodies. I do not approve of executive bodies, and that is not because nobody has ever asked me to serve on one. However, they are noticeable for their belief that they know what is good for the rest of us.
      When the present Government decide to set up an executive body, alarm bells ring. I look round my region, which I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, and I notice that where the present Government have responsibility for the reappointment of members of executive bodies, they follow party political interests. I was going to say that anyone who shows sympathy with the Labour party is replaced, but I should say that anyone who is not an apparently devoted member of the Conservative party is removed and replaced by someone who is regarded as politically more sound.
      If the present Government are to appoint these bodies, they will not depart from their practice since the 1979 election. We shall have an executive body packed with Conservatives with free time on their hands, one-time whiz-kids who, thanks to the bankruptcies in their companies due to the policies of the Government that they appear to support, have enough time on their hands to do the paid bidding of the Government of the day.
      My hon. Friends, and many Conservative Members who have spoken, regard the presence of newspaper reporters at meetings of such bodies as essential. The borough of Sandwell has had four members of the Labour party serving on it since its creation. The borough is also well served by having two evening newspapers. If the

      223
      executive body to which we are referring was meeting exclusively in London and met on Saturday, the Minister could argue that it would not be necessary to admit the press because London does not have a Saturday evening paper. However, my area has two evening newspapers, and two on Saturday as well, with two sports editions to follow.
      The exclusion of representatives of the Sandwell edition of the Express and Star and the Sandwell Evening Mail would not only be resented by the editors of the newspapers—and is, as I shall show—but would be a great disservice to the people of the borough. The people of the borough will be responsible through their rates, levied by the executive body, which the Minister will doubtless blithely describe, without any democratic say or any knowledge of what has taken place at meetings of the new authority, unless they bothered to turn up to the press conference. There they will be given glossy handouts, a cup of coffee and be sent on their way.
      Mr. Beith: And told which paragraphs to read.
      Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is correct.
      Tonight, in the Sandwell Evening Mail, there is an interesting editorial. The editor, Mr. John Bradbury, has given me permission to quote from it. Unfortunately, he had to read it over the telephone, as a copy of the paper has not arrived within the precincts of the House. It says:
      "If the Government has its way the water workers will be employed by immensely powerful new authorities completely unaccountable to the public. The Bill … means that meetings will not be open to the press. The press is the representative of the public. Its presence ensures that there is some check on the activities of such bodies.
      In the face of protests the Government has come up with a sham form of press representation. Press conferences after meetings. These will merely report what decisions have been taken and publicity will not influence those decisions."
      The editorial goes on:
      "It is ironic"—
      that is not a word I would use personally but I must quote my evening newspaper accurately—
      "that this shabby substitute is put forward by an administration supposedly devoted to the principle of open government."
      7.30 pm
      It goes on to repeat the speech made by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) back in 1960 to which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has referred. I suppose one could argue that there is good reason for her change of heart. At that time, she was not Prime Minister. Now that she is, she knows what is good for us. However, she does not evidently know what is good for the editor of one of my local evening newspapers. The editorial goes on:
      "Yet her Government propose to put no such check"—
      that is the check of democracy and accountability—
      "on water authorities. They will be able to levy rates and yet be unaccountable to ratepayers. There is still time for second thoughts."
      I would have thought the prospects of a change of mind by the Minister were fairly minimal. I would have thought the prospect of the hon. Gentleman accepting this Sensible new clause was fairly slim. I know him moderately well and recognise that he thinks for himself. I hope that he will not merely read a brief containing all the excuses beloved of civil servants to show why the light of press
      224
      accountability should not shine on this executive body. Before making such a speech, if he intends to do so, the hon. Gentleman should know that he has not so far found any friends in the House. I do not believe that the House of Commons, with its belief in democracy, accountability and the right of the press to report meetings of public bodies, will accept the clause as it stands but will demand that the new clause should be passed.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) but the Minister will find that he has a friend on the Conservative Back Benches who wishes to support the decision taken by the Government. I have been a journalist. I have attended and reported council meetings. I am aware that there are occasions during council meetings when the press are asked to leave and dutifully troop out, returning when the council decides the moment when they can be allowed back. One can overstate the effectiveness of the press sitting in on meetings.
      I have referred to council meetings. If the water authorities are to be accepted as excutive bodies, our thinking has to change accordingly. If they are executive bodies spending public money, so are nationalised industries. When they charge for water on a meter, are they levying a rate or simply charging for water? In the same way, nationalised industries charge for their services. The analogy can be drawn to the extent that water authorities came within the purview of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries of which I was a member. It seems to me to follow that we cannot accept a certain amount of press intervention for one executive body without applying the same condition for other publicly owned executive bodies. By the same token, if the water companies are not required to have the press at their board meetings, why should the water authorities, if they are executive bodies?
      A further argument has to be advanced. Will an executive be able to do its job better, more frankly and more effectively and will it be able to discuss in greater detail and in total honesty all that needs to be discussed if it knows that the press is sitting at its elbow taking everything down? The water authorities will be much smaller. Their executive boards can be likened to a board of directors. The decisions of such a group of people will be more properly reached if they are fully discussed and put together rationally without the press actually being present at the discussion.
      By offering the voluntary code of practice and by insisting upon press conferences at the end of board meetings and other meetings, we are enabling the presss to find out from those who run the authority the reasons for the decisions that they have reached. To hear Opposition Members, one would think that the press lacked the ability to discover what goes on behind the closed doors of all authorities. Yet, every day of the week, we can read about what happens in the Cabinet, in Government Departments, in the Labour party's private sanctums and in the alliance, among the friends of the alliance and the alliance itself. All that information is made available to us every day of the week. However, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in particular tries to argue that if the press is not allowed to sit with the executive around the table it will not be able to inform the public about what the water authority is or is not doing, how it reached a decision and

      225
      the basis for that decision. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is so naive. He is putting forward special pleading because he believes that through clause 3 he can embarrass the Government.
      Mr. Denis Howell: As the Prime Minister herself has demonstrated at the Dispatch Box today, it will be easier for the press to know what has gone on in Cabinet and secret Select Committees than it will for the press to know what is happening in water authorities. The reason is simple. Everyone knows what is on the agenda of the Cabinet. Unless the chairman of a water authority is prepared to tell us, no one will know what is on the agenda of a water authority.
      Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am not sure that I follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I cannot see how the press conference, which is part and parcel of the voluntary code, could take place without the press being aware of what has been discussed at the board meeting. In those terms alone, the press would have an agenda. No self-respecting journalist aware of a local problem will allow those who speak at a press conference to get away with it. I hope that the chairman and chief executive of the authority will be required to be present at such press conferences. I see those conferences as vital in achieving accountability, which I agree should be available to the press in relation to decisions.
      When the proposals in the Bill were first announced to the House the statement was made by the present Secretary of State for the Environment. I asked if his statement meant that in the future water authorities would be accountable to this House on the Floor of the House, meaning that the Secretary of State would answer for them. My right hon. Friend replied that it did. That is accountability that did not exist before. The accountability that allows every hon. Member to question the Secretary of State together with the fact that the press will be able to take part in press conferences, where those making the decisions can be questioned, gives a new measure of accountability. It is sufficient accountability to make any ratepayer believe that he will be as well, if not better, informed than in the past.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I trust that my hon. Friend has passed on that valuable information to the Table Office so that it will accept questions which until now it has been unable to accept.
      Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that until the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the Table Office does not need to take new instructions from anyone.
      I read the Guild of British Newspaper Editors document with interest and some sympathy, and although my local editor has asked me to persuade the Government to think again about allowing the press into all the meetings of the water authorities, I cannot convince myself that that will make for a more accountable water industry than we have had in the past, nor that it will not create an inequality between those executive bodies running our water industry and the executive bodies that run other state-owned industries.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We have heard a fascinating speech—the only speech supporting the Government, as I am sure the Minister will have noted. The speech was about the important presupposition that
      226
      henceforward we shall be able to table any and every parliamentary question that we want and get answers. We shall not be blocked at the Table Office. We shall not be blocked by Ministers saying that it is not their responsibility. We shall be able to ask these questions and get full and meaningful answers. That was the presupposition of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I see the Minister nodding. Now he shakes his head. Now he has a look of uncertainty, even horror. I hope that that horror and uncertainty will find their way to the Back Benches, and that the hon. Member for Newbury will understand that his assumption is not shared by his Front Bench. We are not quite so certain whether we can ask all these questions and get the answers. In other words, the activities of water authorities will be kept from the public, and we shall continue to be unable to ask the questions in this place that we should be able to ask.
      My constituents come to my surgeries week after week with problems about their water supply. They have a leak, or there is a problem with the water supply, sewerage, or something else. They tell me that they have been to the district councillor, who says that he cannot do anything about it. They have been to their county councillor, who tells them that the Gwynedd county council can do nothing. They tell me that they have tried to get at the water authority, but they cannot find the office. So they ask me to raise the matter in Parliament. We know the answer to that. We cannot raise the matter in Parliament. We are told that it is not a ministerial responsibility, that it is a matter for the nationalised industry, the board. We are told that these important matters, which are brought up in my surgeries week after week, will be discussed by the board behind closed doors, where no one can scrutinise what goes on. It is no wonder that there is frustration in Wales, and no doubt elsewhere, at the way in which the water industry has developed in recent years.
      I would say to the hon. Member for Newbury that there is a massive difference between a press statement at the end of a meeting and someone sitting listening to the meeting. If the press statement is comprehensive and balanced, at the very best it reflects only what happened at the meeting. In all probability it will be less than that and will involve a weighting or trimming or will have a presentational aspect. So what comes out is not quite the same as what went on at the meeting.
      Our friends in the press are left with only one option, and that is to nose around among members of the authority, employees, waste paper baskets, or whatever is available, to get a story. No doubt the story that goes out is unbalanced, not because of any fault on the part of the press but because they are not allowed access to the fundamental information.
      Like the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I was a member of a local authority before coming to this place. That was before reorganisation. I know that from time to time sensitive decisions are taken in local authorities, and that when that happens the press are asked either to go out or not to report what they hear for five minutes, or perhaps half an hour. Invariably, the press cooperate, and there is no doubt that the press would cooperate in the same way when sensitive decisions are taken in the water industry.
      As in local government, discussions in the water industry will take place outside formal meetings. There will be discussions of technical matters at managerial

      227
      level, where the press are not involved. So some of the more sensitive matters are decided some time before the final decisions are taken. That does not stop discussion. It does not paralyse the water industry to think about the important issues that face it. Those issues are important and are becoming increasingly important. For example, the escalating costs of replacing sewers will involve community after community in the coming months and years, and there will be massive decisions of priority in public expenditure. Decisions will have to be made to carry out one project and reject another, and those decisions will affect the communities involved, where every house will be affected by those decisions. So the communities should know what is going on in their name.
      7.45 pm
      I believe that the authorities should be directly elected. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, although I do not remember getting his support when the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill went through Parliament. However, we regarded that as a method of getting democratic control of the water authorities and others.
      The water authority, in particular, needs democratic control and scrutiny because, as has been said, it has a tax-raising power. That is the difference between this industry and other nationalised industries. Other nationalised industries charge a price in relation to the commodity they sell and the volume of the commodity they sell. In this case, a rate is charged. Industrial and commercial consumers may have a metered consumption, but, for the vast majority of citizens in each water authority it is a rate, and that rate is not related to the use of the commodity, but to the rateable value of the property in which they live.
      There is a small shop in my constituency, which I have mentioned before. It has a wash basin and a toilet, and it was paying £800 a year in water rates. It was a scandal. That shop has a direct interest in the decisions that are taken, and it should know what is going on within the walls of the water authorities.
      There are arguments between water authorities. There was the recent one between the Welsh water authority and the Severn-Trent water authority. The position is unsatisfactory for Wales, because our rate in the pound is twice that in the Severn-Trent area. The final decision was taken at ministerial level, and we had to wait 15 months for it. If the water authority were more open, I am sure that there would have been greater pressure to ensure an earlier and a better decision.
      There have been examples in Wales where the press has done good service for the water industry. The press found that the Severn-Trent water authority was using massive assets in Wales and paying virtually no rent at all. The press reported that, and the issue came under public scrutiny. Whatever the merits of the issue, it was the press who projected it in such a way that people in local government and in Parliament could pursue the matter.
      In my view, there is an overwhelming case for the press to be allowed in to report the activities of the water authorities. There is a danger of manipulation of the press. I have a nasty suspicion that what we heard earlier today in the statement on the Falklands was a form of manipulation of the press, making sure that the story put forward was the one that was wanted by the Executive. I
      228
      have a feeling that, in the case of the tragic shootings that we heard about in Kensington earlier this week, there was an attempt to manipulate the press to make sure that the story was projected in the way that the authorities wanted. Equally, I suspect that shutting the press out of water authority meetings is another attempt to ensure that what is projected is what is wanted by the establishment, and not necessarily what is in the interests of the people they serve.
      I beg the Government to look again at the matter. If we in this Chamber cannot get the change that is needed by means of this new clause, I hope that the other place will achieve what we cannot do and ensure that there is a safeguard for the people.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: I think that since 1973, when the water boards were set up, Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have received more complaints about the cost of water. There are possibly two reasons for this. First, water is now charged separately and is no longer a part of the rates. Secondly, the cost of water has increased and there is no scope for metering. The charge is related entirely to rateable value.
      I can see no reason why there should not be scrutiny of what is spent. It is clear that there is public anxiety. It is no good comparing the water industry with the gas industry. One does not have to have gas but it is necessary to have water. Those who do not have main drainage are always involved in the argument about sewerage connection. We know that there is much dissatisfaction on that score.
      What control have ratepayers over the scale of the charge which is levied? The answer is "None". We are faced with a clear problem because the water authorities are not accountable to ratepayers. However, I believe that they must be accountable to Parliament. When the Post Office was accountable to Parliament, there were so many small issues brought before it that in the end parliamentary control was removed for various reasons. We are dealing now with another nominated body which is levying tax. Surely the old maxim "No taxation without representation" is as applicable to water as to anything else. If the water industry is compared with other nationalised industries, I say that the other industries should be subject to more scrutiny than they are at present.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is a strange inconsistency in the Government's position which is being revealed as the debate progresses. It should be remembered that the Prime Minister promised during the 1979 general election that there would be more open government. We are not getting that open government. In the clause which deals with access by the press to meetings of water authorities, we are being given closed government.
      This is a contentious issue which we debated at great length in Committee. Following the Minister's comments, some of us were led to believe that the Government might be more forthcoming than they have been. There were representatives of the media who for 10 days or two weeks felt that the Government, because of what they had heard within their profession, were possibly going to give way. However, there has been no flexibility apart from the introduction of a code of practice, which has been described by the Guild of British Newspaper Editors as
      "a shabby substitute for a legally established right."

      229
      I believe that the House will be grateful to Conservative Members who have expressed dissent from the Government's decision. I am glad to note that they will be joining the Opposition in voting against the Government. There must be many of their hon. Friends who think in a similar way. If there were to be a real and objective debate on this issue, I am convinced that there would be a majority against the Government. There will be Conservative Members supporting the Government tonight who have not fully considered the issue and who have ignored the representations made to them, which have also been made to the Minister. In his short intervention the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) said that the Minister had a mailbag from the media within his constituency and from other constituencies in which the strongest representations are made against the Government's position.
      I shall refer to correspondence that I have received since the debates that took place in Committee from representatives of the media. I shall draw on a letter that was written by the North-Western Evening Mail, which serves a part of my county of Cumbria. The editor, Mr. Tom Welsh, states:
      "Can I mention again the argument that the press has made little use of its right of access to water authorities in the past? Whether this is true of the county as a whole I do not know but it is certainly untrue in the case of the Evening Mail. The North West water authority's meetings at Warrington discussed many important issues affecting my readers. These include the ever increasing cost to consumers, the region's chronic crisis over supply, the construction of the new pipeline from Hawes water, the deterioration of the Victorian sewerage system and the serious pollution around our coast"—
      that is the coast of Cumbria. He continues:
      "Under the 1960s Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act the press has the right to receive committee documents relating to those meetings to which we have access and guidance from the Ministry of the Environment, and under the administrations of both political hues it has been agreed that this material should reach the press in adequate time to publish it, so that members of the public affected by decisions of the various authorities have the chance to make their views felt. In many cases our articles have been based on such documents rather than attendance at the meetings. In future we shall not receive those documents and therefore shall be unable to warn our readers about matters which may have the greatest significance for them."
      That is a denial and betrayal of democratic principles and the Minister and his friends should feel ashamed of themselves for bringing such a proposition before the House.
      In a letter to a number of hon. Members dated 11 January, the Guild of British Newspaper Editors replied to a point made by the Minister in Committee and stated:
      "Water authorities, unlike the Gas and Electricity Boards, are rate levying bodies. We believe that they should therefore be directly accountable to the public whose money they are spending."
      Again, the Minister rejects that argument. In doing so he betrays democracy on an essential principle. I shall omit the references that the guild makes to the Prime Minister's statements in the early 1960s. They have been well rehearsed this evening and it is for the right hon. Lady to defend the clear inconsistency in her position. However, it continues:
      "We are not impressed by the argument that the press should not attend because the new Water Authorities will be smaller than at present."
      What a spurious argument. The guild adds:
      "The Regional and District Health Authorities are of the same size and the press are admitted to their meetings. In any event
      230
      the number of people seated round a table cannot seriously be thought to be so crucial that a long-established legal right should be removed at a stroke."
      How right it is in making that statement. What does it matter how large the body is? What matters is how important the decisions are that are being taken and to what extent they effect the constituents of all hon. Members. The guild argues that the
      "proposed code of practice would be wholly unsatisfactory. It would apparently require there to be press conferences after all board or main committee meetings. This would mean that the press would be informed only of actual decisions taken and would be unable to report the way in which such decisions were reached. The proposal has been put forward as if press conferences would be something new which, of course, is not the case."
      Later it states:
      "We do not accept that admission to the meetings of the proposed consumer councils or admission to the meetings of the full Authority where there are special circumstances, whatever these may be, will be sufficient to ensure that the public are informed about what the Water Authorities are doing."
      There have been perhaps thousands of pieces of correspondence that have come before hon. Members. We could have the Benches full of hon. Members on both sides of the House quoting their letters from editors, from newspapers, from journalists and from all organisations that will be affected by the Government's stupid decision.
      8 pm
      I shall give some more quotations. The Press Gazette Group is a London newspaper group. The editor, Mr. Bill Field, writes:
      "It seems to me that the Bill represents another threat to the ability of newspapers to freely report matters of public interest".
      In its original correspondence to me, the North-West Evening Mail said:
      "The exclusion of the press would mean that much less information would be available to the public about the operation of a vital public service. Water charges have become a highly controversial subject and now it seems that important decisions affecting the public are to be reached behind closed doors."
      The Government's proposal is totally at variance with every commitment and promise that they made at the general election. They promised open government. This is closed government. The British people do not want it. The Government should recognise that and remove this idiotic proposition from the Bill.
      The Cumbrian Newspapers Group comments:
      "You must be aware that there is strong public feeling about water boards. For decisions about this public service to be taken in secret will only fuel controversy and criticism."
      That is a small portion of the views expressed to my hon. Friends about the nonsense of the Government's position. In correspondence to me dated 18 January, the Guild of British Newspaper Editors asked four crucial questions, to which I ask the Minister to address himself when he replies to the debate. Those questions were:
      "Will the Water Authorities have the discretion as to what matters are put before the consultative committees or will every issue for decision by the Authority also be considered by the relevant consultative committee? Will such matters always be put to the committees before the relevant decision is taken or will there be occasions on which the Authorities will only in fact make a formal reference after decisions have been made but before their announcement? Will the committees have available the full documentation and information on which the Boards themselves will take decisions on any matter? Will the committees have powers to request and receive any papers and documents they wish from the authorities?"

      231
      The guild asked those questions because they are crucial and in the public interest. The Minister should reply to them all. I shall persist in intervening during his reply until we receive clear undertakings on each count.
      There is the issue of what the public will no longer see, hear or know until the decisions have been taken by the water authorities. My constituency is in a part of the country in which every endeavour, manufacturing and recreational—whether angling or paper making—is directly related to the water industry and water amenities. In the county of Cumbria more bodies than in other parts of the country have a direct interest in what is going on in the water authority. Historically, they have been able to look to the local media to see the process of decision-making and to make their comments to whatever authority they wanted. They do not have confidence in the consultative arrangements that the Minister provides for in his amendment. They feel strongly that the Government are removing precious historic rights that they believe are important if they are to carry out their functions. They believe that the media should have access to the water authorities. They look to the Government to ensure that changes are made, even as late as Lords amendments, to secure what they believe, I believe and the majority of the House would believe if all hon. Members were free to vote as they wished, to be the public interest.
      Mr. Gareth Wardell: We all accept that information is a vital part of our democratic system. When information is difficult to get at Government level, it does not inspire confidence when such information is made more difficult to obtain from a quango such as the water authorities. That is deeply worrying to the people.
      I shall give two examples showing how difficult and evasive the Government have been, not with regard to the Franks committee about which we heard today, but with regard to the gathering of information. When my hon. Friend the Member for Carmathen (Dr. Thomas) tried to ascertain what was the use of the dioxin-carrying weedkiller 2,4,5,T, on a number of occasions questions were asked of different Departments. Each reply stated that only 3 tonnes of that weedkiller were used in the United Kingdom. When my hon. Friend asked how much of that weedkiller was imported to the United Kingdom the answer was that such information is not separately distinguished in "British Overseas Trade Statistics". That answer did not say that such figures are available from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. In 1980, 58 tonnes of 2, 4, 5, T were imported into the United Kingdom. Such evasion does not give us confidence that the information that the Government are giving us is either accurate or up-to-date. It seems to be deliberately evasive.
      My second example is about the Armitage report on transport. It recommended that fuel injection equipment in heavy lorries should be made tamper proof in line with regulations in other countries. When I asked the Secretary of State for Transport which countries required such tamper-proof equipment to be fitted, I received the following answer from the Under-Secretary:
      "As far as I am aware, only Sweden has a requirement intended to reduce the possibility of tampering with fuel injection equipment."—[Official Report, December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 461.]
      Further inquiries on my part to the Automobile Association led to the information that Sweden,
      232
      Switzerland and Czechoslovakia have such equipment. The answer by the Minister had been prefaced by the evasive phrase:
      "As far as I am aware".
      Therefore the Department of Transport is in no position to find out where in the world those devices are fitted, but the Automobile Association can find it out quickly.
      I shall refer now to information about the water industry and the position in the Principality. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has beeen examining it recently. While the people of Wales anxiously await the report of the Committee, which has been delayed for a number of reasons, the evidence of that Committee has been published. It is most informative. Of all the witnesses who came before the Select Committee only the Welsh CBI opposed the continued right of public access to water authority meetings.
      It is interesting that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), defended that right when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on 2 December 1981. He is well versed in the problems of water in Wales and stated in his evidence:
      "I do not want to draw analogies but there are analogies in other services where they operate very efficiently. Nevertheless they hold their meetings in public. I do not really see the need for privacy in decision making as overriding the need for effective action as the Authority sees it."
      I fully endorse that and I am sure that the people of Wales also support the view so cogently put by the Under-Secretary. I sincerely hope that the Government's retrograde step in seeking to limit press access will be reversed today. So far, only one Conservative Member has befriended the Government on this.
      The headquarters of the Welsh water authority is in Brecon, so it is not an easy journey from, say, Rhossili in the western part of my constituency to see the authority performing its decision-making role. The journey will be virtually impossible by public transport when the full effects of the Government's cut in rate support grant have worked through the local authorities, with reductions in bus subsidies and consequent cuts in services, and the Gower pony will be just about defunct.
      The press is a vital instrument of information transfer when the senility of public transport in rural areas is aided by the Government and the Commissioner for Local Administration may no longer investigate cases of maladministration alleged to have been committed by water authorities. With the changes proposed by the Government in the Bill, it would seem sensible to establish a new ombudsman with substantial powers which are currently denied to the Commissioner for Local Administration.
      Under the agency agreements between water authorities and local authorities, sewerage functions are discharged by district councils. As I said in the Standing Committee—and I shall continue to pursue this until the problem is solved—a number of my constituents in Sybil street and Hebron road in Clydach live in daily fear that their kitchens and living rooms may at any time once again be flooded with raw human sewage. Even in the tourist haven of Oxwich my constituents face a similar problem.
      The Welsh water authority decides the priorities of sewerage schemes as between the conflicting claims—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must relate his remarks to the admission of the press to water authority meetings.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Wardell: I was just coming to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Welsh water authority and other water authorities have an agency agreement with regard to the discharge of sewerage functions. The press can draw attention to problems of the kind that I have described throughout Wales and in other areas.
      It is important to remember that we are dealing with a rate levying authority whose members will henceforth be nominated exclusively by Ministers. It will handle large sums of public money but will be accountable only to itself, without a press presence at its meetings.
      The retrograde nature of this was highlighted in the Western Mail—the national newspaper of Wales—on 13 July, with the following headline:
      "Welsh Water Authority dry up in secret meetings".
      If the Western Mail believed that the Welsh water authority was drying up last July, permanent aridity of information will rapidly become the norm if the Government have their way on this crucial issue.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like other Opposition Members, I support new clause 3 and the need to allow the press to attend the meetings of the new water authorities.
      When I talk to my constituents, when canvassing and at other times, I find that many of them, sadly, take the somewhat cynical view that politicians in general say one thing and do another. The Government's attitude to the new clause neatly illustrates that. Governments of all political persuasions in this country have supported the belief that there should be far more freedom of information and that the public should have greater rights of access to the information on which decisions are made. Yet in cases in which the Government could actually do something about that this is what happens. The Government say that they are not prepared to allow the press into meetings to report what is being done on behalf and with the money of the people of this country. That is deplorable.
      The Government offer only two possible reasons. First, they argue that the press do not attend very regularly now. Secondly, they make comparisons with other nationalised industries. It is extremely important that we enjoy rights even if we do not always exercise them. The Stockport Express and the Stockport Area Messenger, for example, certainly cannot afford to send a reporter to every meeting of the North-West water authority, but when they know that a problem will be discussed that is of particular interest to the people of Stockport they need the right to have somebody at the meeting to report what is said and to make it clear to the people of Stockport that their views are being put, whether by elected representatives as in the past or by the new appointees, so that they can exert an influence and, if necessary, political pressure to ensure that the people of the area have a fair deal from the water authority. Nothing will convince people unless they know that somebody can attend the meeting and actually hear the views put. That is extremely important. Of course, there will be many occasions on which local newspapers will not send reporters. Nevertheless, they should enjoy the right to do so if they wish.
      234
      The Government's other argument is that water authorities should be treated like other nationalised industries, which do not have to put up with the press at their meetings.
      Many people believe in the importance of freedom of information. We should examine ways of opening up many nationalised industries to more public scrutiny and more, rather than less, public access to information.
      I am fully aware that some industries are competing with foreign competitors. There is the argument about trade secrets and the problem that public access would have with regard to foreign competition. However, apart from matters that may be confidential perhaps because they are of a personal type about an employee—which is already covered by existing legislation—there is no information involved in water authority meetings which is inappropriate for public debate.
      The only way to achieve proper and informed public debate is to ensure that meetings are reported in the media and that the issues are discussed. When I travel round my constituency, one of the bodies that comes in for most criticism is the North-West water authority. One reason is that my constituents know little about it. That has much to do with the way in which the authority was set up. The only way to break down that barrier is to encourage people to attend its meetings.
      The Government claim that the new procedure will be streamlined and that there is much more chance that the press will report the issues. As a result, the public will be better informed about the problems that face the water industry and they will be happier to pay their water rates if they know the money is being spent wisely and there is public discussion of the priorities. If water authorities' affairs are carried on behind closed doors, people will be more cynical about authorities and will increasingly demand that water authorities be democratically controlled. The sooner that happens the better, but meanwhile, there should be media access to all meetings.
      Mr. Ogden: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in one regard only—I support new clause 3. I disagree with him about the level of criticism of the North-West water authority. During the present Parliament I have received only two complaints from constituents about the activities of that authority. Both constituents are vocal and know where to find their Member of Parliament. That puts what the hon. Gentleman said into perspective.
      I should like to have pursued the points that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) raised about the accessibility of the Welsh water authority from the wilder parts of Brecon and Clydach. I congratulate him on making a lucid, cogent, competent and extensive Second Reading speech in a discussion on one amendment. I enjoyed his speech. I hope that he is always as successful as he was tonight.
      The Minister is smiling. I should not like to wipe the smile off his face. Perhaps he would like to intervene later to clear up a matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I normally admire his speeches. However, he confused some of his arguments a little today. He confused those authorities such as gas, electricity and coal that charge for services with those that charge a rate.
      Carried to its logical conclusion, the argument of the hon. Member for Newbury is that it is not necessary for

      235
      the press to attend water authority meetings because Members of Parliament will be able to safeguard their constituents' interests by asking the relevant Minister questions in the House. A logical development of that argument is that we might as well close down Hansard, the BBC's recording of the House and press coverage of the House. That is ridiculous. I read the Sunday newspapers to find out what is happening here. Nevertheless, what questions will I and other Members be able to ask the relevant Minister, whether he be from the Department of Trade, the Department of the Environment or the Welsh Office? What questions will hon. Members be able to get through the Table Office? What detailed questions will hon. Members be able to table about the day-to-day activities about roads, streets and sewerage charges? We will want to be able to ask more than merely who is the chairman or vice-chairman of an authority and what costs are involved. What questions will the relevant Minister and his colleagues be able to answer? If the Minister wants to take that point up now I shall gladly give way. I hope that he will answer that point before the end of the debate.
      The Minister will remember that, in Committee, we debated press access. With his usual charm, the Minister gave us a whole host of things about press access to consumer councils. We were talking not about press access to proposed consumer councils, but press access to water authority meetings. We had hoped that in the few weeks since then, some arrangements would have been made between the newspaper fraternity—the Guild of British Newspaper Editors—and the Ministry. That has clearly been rejected. A guild press release has already been referred to. It said of the proposals:
      "The Guild regards this as a shabby substitute for a legally established right of access."
      It continued:
      "In the view of the Guild the Government's admission that there might be circumstances in which the presence of the press might be justified shows that to exclude the press and public from the meetings of the rate levying authorities is a retrograde and dangerous precedent."
      Those are fairly powerful criticisms from a body that relies considerably on the good will of Government to perform its news collecting service.
      Who first suggested that the press should be excluded from the meetings of the new water authorities? Was it a ministerial idea? Did the proposal come from the water authorities? If so, from which authorities? It has always been assumed, although it has never been stated in debate, that the present proposal is being presented to the House by the water authorities through the Government. The unspoken suggestion is that the proposal is being made so that water authorities can get on with their business quietly and privately. It is intended that they will be able to slip measures through without anyone knowing about them. That conclusion may be incorrect, but any competent, effective and efficient water authority such as the one that we have in the north-west, in spite of occassional criticisms of it, should be more than willing for members of the press to attend their formal meetings. It should not be content merely with a face-saving press conference. Water authorities should be ready, able and willing to use the press to get the good news over. To deny access to the press is to deny water authorities a channel of communication that they should accept. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions even though his speech
      236
      may have been prepared. Who suggested that the press be excluded—the Government or the authorities? If it was the water authorities, which ones did so? Secondly, what questions will hon. Members be able to ask in the House?
      Will the Minister examine the matter? Press access has done no harm and much good. The proposal places the new authorities under some doubt from the start. It clouds their initiative and their style. It is a handicap that they must overcome.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: There can be no doubt that the issue of press access has created the greatest degree of controversy during the passage of the Bill. The press has been effective in alerting hon. Members about its anxieties. However, we must note its absence from the Press Gallery—but perhaps it is only a paper tiger.
      The main issues in the debate stem in part from misunderstanding and in part from genuine concern. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that the Bill would result in the elimination of local authority representation on the new-style boards. That is not the case. There will be at least two representatives in each of the water authorities. The most significant part of the Bill is the substantial change in local authority representation, from being the majority in large organisations—boards of 62, 47 or 35—to two persons on a board of nine or 15.
      Mr. Denis Howell: It is a question not of numbers, but of substance. The present local authority members are appointed by local authorities and, through them, have a degree of accountability to the ratepayers.
      I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in the Chamber. I offer him my congratulations on his preferment. I am sure that he will wish to appoint people with experience in local government, but they will not be accountable to local government. That is a substantial change.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Shaw: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. On reflection, he must recognise that even under the existing regime the composition of a water authority does not include representatives from all local authorities within its region.
      The character of the new authorities is fundamentally different from the local authority majority structure that it will replace. That, above all else, is the most important reason why the review of press access resulted in the decision that it was no longer appropriate. We must bear in mind that the Bill will move the character of the authorities away from the local authority, open forum type meeting to an executive style.
      Mr. Spence: In whose opinion was press access not appropriate to the new authorities? Is that the Government's opinion, the opinion of the administrators or the Civil Service? What about the consumers whom we represent? Have they been consulted?
      Mr. Shaw: It is the Government's opinion that that is the right decision to make, and it is for the House to determine whether that should be so. That is why we are debating the matter. I shall seek to justify that. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that there should be a fundamental restructuring of the authorities. It was critical of the scale of authorities, of the

      237
      management structure within them—it examined the Severn-Trent authority—of the communication and control problems and of the large consumption of time in the administration of the committee system which, ultimately, produced a 47-man authority. An independent third party important investigation was carried out and the advice was that changes in structure should be considered. Hon. Members have not denied the general feeling on both sides of the House that water authorities have not earned the accolade of great achievement that we wish them to earn. Therefore, change is desirable.
      The second problem is whether the proposals are a fundamental denial of the rights of the public, the water consumer, Members of Parliament and those who seek to scrutinise public bodies, which should be resisted à l'outrance—as, I suspect, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would have us do. Undoubtedly that would be the case were we proposing total exclusion while not seeking to offer any public scrutiny of water authorities or their activities.
      Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend specifically mentioned that Members of Parliament would not be allowed to ask the Minister specific questions in Parliament on all aspects of the water authority. Will he enlarge on that, as many hon. Members have mentioned that point?
      Mr. Shaw: I shall reply to that point in a moment. Total exclusion of the press has been implied by many hon. Members. They have questioned how that relates to public scrutiny.
      The regional water authorities, will still be subject to an immense range of public scrutiny. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has already been used and, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's leadership, will continue to be used as a major vehicle of public examination.
      The report and accounts of the water authorities, laid before the House in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will be displayed to show every aspect of the water authorities' activities, performance aims, investment appraisal, manpower trends and all the other matters that one would wish a publicly accountable body to show in public.
      It will still be possible to ask a wide range of questions of Ministers who are accountable to the House for the ways in which the water authorities operate. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) will be interested in the precise nature of those ways. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know better than I, the policy for the acceptance of questions must be determined by the Chair. The decision that we have reached now will not be changed by the Bill's provisions. Presently, Ministers are prepared to answer questions on a wide range of matters, such as broad policy issues, charging policies, investment policies, manpower, and other matters relating to water authorities. Those are currently available for scrutiny through the parliamentary questions procedure. That will remain the case.
      If it is believed that this width of questioning is inadequate, I give an undertaking to the House, subject to the agreement of the Table Office, that we shall extend it. The House has a right to know what the water authorities are doing in relation to their reports.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of State to make such a statement?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order from the Minister.
      Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I accept that the House must be satisfied that the questioning of water authorities on the report and accounts laid—the information that is provided—is sufficient for my right hon. Friend and me fully to discharge our ministerial obligations.
      Mr. Beith: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful to the House, but if the Bill makes no changes in the areas in which Ministers are subject to parliamentary questioning, it follows that there can have been no change in the relationship of power between Ministers and the water authorities. Otherwise, there would have been implications for parliamentary questions. In what sense has the character of the water authorities changed? I do not mean their style or how many members they have, but their range of responsibilities. In what sense have they become executive bodies in a way that they were not previously?
      Mr. Shaw: That will largely depend on how the authorities operate under the powers contained in the Bill. I remind the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that under the Bill's provisions, every member of the water authority is appointed by the Minister concerned. There will be total ministerial responsibility for appointments, which is rather important.
      It is already known that the Government are involved in many aspects of water authority capital expenditure and external financing limits. We must then ask ourselves whether there will be sufficient access and opportunity for the media and for the public in the water authority areas.
      A point that we made in Committee about the availability of information to the press won considerable ill-will from both hon. Members and gentlemen of the press. It is not a shabby substitute to increase such information.
      The House must understand that the press is admitted by statute to about four, five or six water authority meetings a year. With the new proceedings, the fact that the boards are smaller should enable water authorities to meet more frequently and should certainly enable a substantial reduction in the committee structure that is so prevalent at the moment. At each meeting the press will be informed of the matters that are to be discussed and the water authorities will be available afterwards at a press conference to answer questions about the meeting. Press conferences are not usual in all water authorities, but the opportunity to question those who have taken decisions at meetings will be increased modestly.
      The second range of new access provisions—the code of practice—has been called a shabby substitute. The code of practice will be drawn up between the chairmen of the regional water authorities and the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. I hope that the guild will recognise that as an opportunity to determine, with the chairmen, the rules under which the press wishes to have access to water authority information. I hope that the press will take advantage of that proposal and that the chairmen and the guild can arrange a code of practice.

      239
      The availability of information at consultative committee meetings will be substantial. I made it clear to the Committee, and I make it clear to the House now, that the guidelines will show that the consultative committees should have the opportunity to probe into anything that they consider appropriate. They will have information about charging policies before charges are made and they can ask questions about and discuss investment policy before investment decisions are made. It is important that they have access to information that is sufficient correctly to discharge their obligations. The guidelines must be drawn up with the fundamental objective of exposing the water authorities' activities to public and press scrutiny.
      I add to that the fact that the consultative committees will meet, for example, not in the head office at Warrington, which is many miles from Carlisle in the North-West regional water authority, but in every division of every regional water authority several times a year. Thus, an evening paper published in Lincoln need not send a representative to Huntingdon for meetings that occur five times a year, but can become involved in what affects the local services of the water authority in Lincoln. That is a substantial advantage to the public and the press. I will not accept, either from my hon. Friends or from Opposition Members, the allegation that we are shutting the book and preventing water authorities from offering their activities for scrutiny by the public and the press.
      Hon. Members could say "But they may not take advantage of it". They may say that the statutory right to attend five or six meetings a year, which the press currently enjoys, will cease. That statutory right will cease, just as local authority membership of water authorities—which at the moment is a majority in each authority—will also cease when the Bill is passed. The two factors ran hand in hand and were both part of local authority structure and of the fact that local authority meetings were open to the press. However, it is not sufficient to say that water authorities are only rate-levying or tax-levying bodies. It is true that they charge and that domestic charges are largely based on rateable values. I regret that fact in many respects.
      We have tried to increase the availability of metering. Had the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) been here, I should have told him that the shop that pays an £800 water bill would benefit from a metering system, if it is to be made available by the Welsh water authority. However, the main objective of the water authority is to discharge statutory functions and to ensure that the consumers of its services, whether domestic or commercial—commercial users account for nearly half the revenue of the water authorities—receive fair, full and effective service. That is what the new proposals in the Bill are designed to achieve. The press will have substantial access to the water authority. The public will have substantially more access to the water authority. This House will have as much access as it now has, and probably more, as Ministers will in a sense be more responsible through their appointments for the operation of water authorities and will seek to discharge those responsibilities to this House.
      The group of amendments consists of the new clause and a Government amendment. The Government wish to make it clear that the right of access under the 1960 legislation is indeed affected by the Bill. I commend that
      240
      amendment to the House. The new clause should be resisted on the ground that I trust I have persuasively put forward.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Alec Jones: The Minister's reply has been the most insensitive reply that I have heard either in Committee or during this debate. I believe that the Government will regret their decision because it is unwise, insensitive and out of tune with the needs of the people. New clause 3 would entrench the existing position of the press. It would not increase that position but merely preserve it as it is now and help to preserve the rights of people as they are now. Amendment No. 31, which the Minister is supporting, is a denial of existing rights to the press and through it to the people of this country.
      It is significant that only one speech has been heard in support of the Government. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wishes to change his point of view after hearing the Minister's reply on whether water authorities are becoming more answerable.
      The Minister said that the position had not been changed by the Bill. If that is the case, any hope we have of tabling parliamentary questions will be as hopeless in the future as it is now. Nothing will have been changed on that score. It is remarkable that the Government are pushing this amendment through. They have traditionally talked about open government. The speech of the Prime Minister has been quoted on so many occasions that I do not propose to repeat it, but bearing in mind what she said, I should have thought that Conservative Members would be voting with the Prime Minister and the Opposition for new clause 3 this evening.
      As to the decision to refuse to allow the press to attend meetings of the water authority, did that suggestion emanate from Government quarters or from water authority quarters? The argument is that it has been necessary to do this because the character of the water authority is now fundamentally different. The only real difference is the size. The new water authorities will have to carry out exactly the same functions, and will have exactly the same powers, as the water authorities today. If size is an argument, it is surely a nonsensical argument when many organisations in this country are of the same or smaller size as the new water authorities that do in fact admit the press with no adverse effects upon their operations. In Welsh terms there is the Land Authority for Wales and there are regional health authorities in England and other health authorities.
      It has been argued that the new water authority may become more executive in character. As my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of this debate, many matters of considerable public importance will be dealt with by the new water authorities irrespective of their size, planning, prices, abuses or misuses of power, health, standards, wages and a wide range of other matters. The public has a right to the earliest knowledge about those matters. It has a right to know before the final decision is taken. It is no good holding a press conference after the decision has been taken. It is crucial that the press know so that they can inform the public before any decisions are taken.
      The Minister tried to sell us his new code of practice. Far from criticising him, I imagine that the Guild of British Newspaper Editors would have offered him its badge of honour. Does the Minister really believe that the Guild of

      241
      British Newspaper Editors is so foolish, ignorant and dull that it does not appreciate this new extension of power which the Minister suggests he is offering? The truth is the very opposite. If we deny the press the right to attend water authority meetings where the crucial decisions are taken, it is no substitute to say, "But you can go to the consumer councils", because the councils are not decision-making bodies.
      The code of practice also suggests that the press may be invited to attend certain water authority meetings. Which? Will they be invited to any meeting that is likely to be embarrassing to the water authority? I do not believe so. The press will be invited only to those meetings that suit the purpose of the water authority, not the interests of the general public.
      Mr. Denis Howell: The Christmas meetings.
      Mr. Jones: Exactly.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did my right hon. Friend note that the Minister refused to reply to the four questions put by the Guild of British Newspaper Editors about its relationship with the water authorities? Will he press the Minister, even now, to answer those important questions?
      Mr. Jones: The points contained in the letter of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors have been spelt out at considerable length. I have referred to some of them. In fact, the Minister's contention that amendment No. 31 increases the availability of information does not stand up to examination. The Bill will create 10 powerful super-quangos. If the public is to be protected against those organisations, we must ensure that press involvement is extended rather than diminished.
      This House has a long tradition of concern for democracy, but we cannot have an effective democracy unless at the same time we have a well-informed democracy. That is what this issue is all about. New clause 3, although dealing with the freedom of the press, deals equally with the rights of the individual. If we support the idea of a well-informed democracy, we must recognise that that cannot be achieved without a well-informed press.
      I hope that all hon. Members will vote for the new clause, including those Conservative Members who spoke against the Government's proposal. Above all else, if this House fails in its duty tonight, I hope that the other place will seek to correct the error of our ways.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 273.

      Division No. 42

      8.53 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Adams, Allen

      Buchan, Norman

      Allaun, Frank

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Ian

      Anderson, Donald

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cant, R. B.

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Beith, A. J.

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

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cohen, Stanley

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Cook, Robin F.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cowans, Harry

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

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

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Crowther, Stan

      242

      Cryer, Bob

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

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

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Davidson, Arthur

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      McKelvey, William

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

      McWilliam, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Marks, Kenneth

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dixon, Donald

      Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

      Dobson, Frank

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Dormand, Jack

      Maxton, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Eastham, Ken

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      English, Michael

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ewing, Harry

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Field, Frank

      Newens, Stanley

      Fitch, Alan

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Flannery, Martin

      Ogden, Eric

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Ford, Ben

      O'Neill, Martin

      Forrester, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foster, Derek

      Palmer, Arthur

      Foulkes, George

      Park, George

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

      Parker, John

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Parry, Robert

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Pendry, Tom

      George, Bruce

      Penhaligon, David

      Golding, John

      Pitt, William Henry

      Gourlay, Harry

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Graham, Ted

      Prescott, John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Hardy, Peter

      Race, Reg

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Radice, Giles

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Haynes, Frank

      Richardson, Jo

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

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

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Home Robertson, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Homewood, William

      Robertson, George

      Hooley, Frank

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Rooker, J. W.

      Howells, Geraint

      Roper, John

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Huckfield, Les

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ryman, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sever, John

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      John, Brynmor

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Silverman, Julius

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Snape, Peter

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Soley, Clive

      Kerr, Russell

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Spence, John

      Lambie, David

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Lamond, James

      Stallard, A. W.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Stoddart, David

      Leighton, Ronald

      Stott, Roger

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Strang, Gavin

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Straw, Jack

      Litherland, Robert

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      243

      Tilley, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Tinn, James

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Torney, Tom

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

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

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

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Winnick, David

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Woodall, Alec

      Wardell, Gareth

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Weetch, Ken

      Wright, Sheila

      Wellbeloved, James

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Welsh, Michael

      White, Frank R.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mr. George Morton.

      Whitlock, William

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Alexander, Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Ancram, Michael

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Arnold, Tom

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Eggar, Tim

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Emery, Sir Peter

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

      Eyre, Reginald

      Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Banks, Robert

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Farr, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Best, Keith

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

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Fox, Marcus

      Blackburn, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Blaker, Peter

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Body, Richard

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Gow, Ian

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, Harry

      Brinton, Tim

      Grieve, Percy

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

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

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hannam, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hastings, Stephen

      Butcher, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawksley, Warren

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

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Heddle, John

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Henderson, Barry

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

      Hill, James

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hooson, Tom

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hordern, Peter

      Colvin, Michael

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

      Cope, John

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Corrie, John

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Critchley, Julian

      Jessel, Toby

      Crouch, David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      244

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Knox, David

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lamont, Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Latham, Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lawrence, Ivan

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lee, John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Silvester, Fred

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Sims, Roger

      Loveridge, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Smith, Sir Dudley

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Speller, Tony

      MacGregor, John

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Sproat, Iain

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

      Squire, Robin

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stainton, Keith

      Major, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marland, Paul

      Stanley, John

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Steen, Anthony

      Mather, Carol

      Stevens, Martin

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Mawby, Ray

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stokes, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mellor, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thompson, Donald

      Moate, Roger

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moore, John

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Trippier, David

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Trotter, Neville

      Murphy, Christopher

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Myles, David

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Neale, Gerrard

      Viggers, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waddington, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Wakeham, John

      Newton, Tony

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Osborn, John

      Waller, Gary

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Walters, Dennis

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Ward, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Warren, Kenneth

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Watson, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Wells, Bowen

      Pawsey, James

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wheeler, John

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Whitney, Raymond

      Pollock, Alexander

      Wickenden, Keith

      Porter, Barry

      Wilkinson, John

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Rathbone, Tim

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Mr. Archie Hamilton and

      Renton, Tim

      Mr. David Hunt.

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 10

      AGREEMENTS ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (No. I)
      '(1) It shall be the duty of each water authority and other statutory water undertaker to seek, either in conjunction with every other such authority or undertaker or by means of such association or other person or organisation as may represent all of them for this purpose, consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between them and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the water authorities, other statutory water undertakers and any person referred to in section 3(4) of this Act with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlements in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements.
      (2) It shall be the duty of every water authority and all other statutory water undertakers and all employers coming into existence as a consequence of this Act to comply with any such agreement.
      (3) Copies of any such agreement and of any instrument varying the terms of any such agreement shall be sent to the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 9—Agreements on terms and conditions of employment (No. 2)—

      '(1) It shall be the duty of each water authority and other statutory water undertaker to seek, either in conjunction with every other such authority or undertaker or by means of such association or other person or organisation as may represent all of them for this purpose, consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between them and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the water authorities, other statutory water undertakers and any person referred to in section 3(4) of this Act with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements.

      (2) It shall be the duty of every water authority and all other statutory water undertakers and all employers coming into existence as a consequence of this Act to comply with any such agreement.

      (3) Copies of any such agreement and of any instrument varying the terms of any such agreement shall be sent to the Secretary of State.

      (4) The words "such agreement" in subsection (2) above shall include any agreement made pursuant to section 26(2) of the principal Act and in operation on the date of determination of the functions of the Council, as if the parties thereto had included all water authorities in place of the Council.'.

      Mr. Howell: This debate is one of the most important this evening, because it involves the whole question of wage negotiations in the water industry and the maintenance of national wage negotiations. Clause 1 proposes to abolish the National Water Council and to replace it with 10 authorities. It will abolish one nationalised industry to replace it by 10 others. In the old days, the water industry's national wage negotiations were always conducted centrally under the collective responsibility of the local authorities and are presently conducted by the water authorities. What will happen now? New clause 10 calls for
      "the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment
      246
      of persons employed by the water authorities … with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements."
      There could not be a more appropriate time to discuss the water industry's wage negotiations. Only an hour ago, the trade union side informed me that it had left the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service after daylong discussions. Clearly, there is a grave threat of a national water strike for the first time in our history. It will affect the whole country. We debate such issues on the eve of what may well be the most damaging industrial dispute to be seen in this country for many a long year. It puts in perspective the importance of national joint negotiating machinery for the industry.
      If the dispute should unfortunately escalate—and we must all hope and pray that it does not and that it is somehow resolved—the effect would be calamitous. Burst water mains will go unrepaired unless the Government have sufficient troops to bring in from the British Army of the Rhine or other quarters, or they can utilise the services of small contractors. In part, that will be the Government's response. I doubt whether it will be adequate. What is certain is that we have a large number of water main bursts every day, because of the age of our water service and supply industry. Many of them will not be dealt with efficiently and promptly, as the householders have a right to expect.
      Many of the householders affected will be confronted with a serious problem. Before long the Secretary of State and other Ministers will have to advise householders that it will be their duty to boil every drop of water that comes from the taps because the quality of the water cannot be guaranteed or safeguarded.
      Probably even more difficult will be the problem of the untreated sewage that will confront the water authorities. As we know from experience, and as I know from having to deal with this problem, the filters will not be cleaned. That will mean that one cannot guarantee the quality of the water going out of the sewerage system and into our rivers.
      On previous occasions, members of the staff side of the water industry, NALGO members and others, have thought it their duty to clean the water filters and safeguard this aspect of the service. In the present dispute, NALGO has made it clear that it will not be prepared to offer that support to the water authorities. That is a new and difficult problem that will confront the authorities.
      The result of all that will undoubtedly be that before long, in many of our water authority areas, and particularly in the Thames water authority, raw sewerage will find its way quickly into the river system with devastating effects. That will be contrary to the statutory requirements of water authorities, under both British and European legislation, to maintain the quality of the river system. This will happen very rapidly in any national dispute. Before we get ourselves into a national dispute, I feel that it is right to spell out these facts so that everybody knows exactly what the consequences of this lamentable problem will be.
      Why has this dispute come about, and how have we got ourselves involved in this serious problem? It is a potentially most damaging problem, and it has come about as a direct result of Government interference in the wage negotiating machinery in the industry. The Government have to accept the full responsibility for having brought the position about.

      247
      We discussed this at length in Committee, so I shall not go into too many details, but I reassert the position. I am glad to see the Secretary of State here, because when he was a Minister of State he was directly responsible for the water industry and felt it right to intervene directly in the negotiation procedures.
      The chairman of the National Water Council has made it clear that the Government intervened. As I have said on the Floor of the House and in Committee, the essential position is that the water chairmen were prepared to make an offer that they thought was negotiable and might be the basis of a settlement in this most essential of our industries. The offer was thought to be about 6 per cent., but on the day of the negotiation the Minister intervened by ringing up people involved in the negotiations and instructing them to offer 4 per cent. At the same moment, the Prime Minister was telling the House that the negotiators were completely free to reach their own decisions. That is now known not to have been the case. The Prime Minister had been sadly ill advised.
      9.15 pm
      The Government have got themselves into an absolutely hopeless situation. In recent months, there has been a total confusion of purpose and a total lack of principle in wage negotiations in the public sector. There has been a complete sense of expediency in the determination of judgments. If one follows this cycle—it is appropriate to use the word "cycle" when we are dealing with the water cycle as well as the wage cycle—we can see the impossible situation into which the Government have got themselves.
      The Government used to belabour the previous Labour Government—I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), responsible for employment matters, is present—when we had difficulties during that awful winter about the vital importance of free collective bargaining. When the Conservative Government took over, they made it a first principle of industrial relations that they would always maintain free collective bargaining. The Government are therefore not in any position to complain if many of those on the trade union side of industry believed that there was some common purpose between the free collective bargaining that the trade unions wanted and the free collective bargaining that the Government stated to be their policy.
      Very soon, as a result of the pursuit of the monetarist policy, which is the economic base on which they stand, the Government found that decisions and agreements reached by free collective bargaining were unacceptable and, indeed, embarrassing to them. When the Civil Service unions asked only last year that these matters should be resolved in a civilised manner and that they should be referred to arbitration, the Government, having first said that there was free collective bargaining and then having intervened, declared that there would be no arbitration for people in the public sector. Those events formed the backcloth to negotiations in the water industry. They were followed by blatant interference in free collective negotiations within the water industry which has brought about the present impasse.
      It is extraordinary, now we are on the edge of this precipice, that the water authorities are saying, no doubt with the support of the Government, that they want to go
      248
      to arbitration. It is inconceivable that the water authorities would go to arbitration if they did not have the support or possibly the prompting of the Government. The issue has gone full circle. The Government are now meeting themselves coming back in wage negotiations. It is a dilemma that the Government face not only in the water industry but in other industries. It would, however, be out of order for me to discuss those other industries under the new clause.
      The message I have received from today's union meeting is that the way out of the dilemma is not the arbitration that has been proposed. The simple reason is that the unions will not go to arbitration until they have first enjoyed what they believe is access to free negotiations with the employers' side. They say that they have not yet had any negotiation. Perhaps the Minister would care to reply to that. I hope that he will. The unions are saying that they have not yet had access to free negotiation with the employers for the water authorities, and ask how therefore they can consider entering into negotiation or anything of that nature until they can exercise the right of negotiation.
      That brings us to the question how the Government propose to get out of the impasse that has been created. It is a matter of vital importance to the House and the country, as well as to the industry. Will the negotiators now be completely free to negotiate? As I understand the position, ACAS is going back to see the employers tomorrow, having spent all today with the trade union side. From my discussions with the trade union side, I have no doubt that ACAS will now ask "Are you in a position freely to negotiate? Is this a meaningful negotiation, if we get both sides together again?" I beg Ministers to understand that that is what the Opposition want. Wherever the political advantages lie, those of us who have been responsible for the industry, as I was for five years, know how horrible would be the effect of a prolonged strike. It would impose intolerable burdens on women with young babies, on old people, and on others. It is the duty of every right hon. and hon. Member and of the Government to try to prevent that. I am glad that the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary and I are in agreement on that. It would be an abhorrent situation.
      We must allow both sides of the industry to solve the matter freely by negotiation in a responsible manner. There is no industry in the country which, throughout its long history, has had more responsible negotiators conducting its wages settlements than those in the water industry. Indeed, some of the difficulties that have now arisen about comparability with workers in gas, electricity, and so on, have arisen because of the sense of responsibility of the negotiators. So the question is: what settlement is open to the employers' representatives to negotiate with the trade union side? If the Government can make it clear today that there is completely free negotiation, and that the instruction to stand firm on a wholly unrealistic 4 per cent. has gone, we may at last begin to make the progress that we all want.
      In case that does not prove possible, I take this opportunity to ask the Government what contingency plans they are making in the event of this catastrophe hitting the country. How do they intend, for example, to maintain the wholesome supply of clean water, which is their statutory duty under law? The statutory duty of the water authority is to supply people with a wholesome supply of clean water, and we want to know whether the Government

      249
      intend to maintain that obligation. How do the Government intend to deal with the questions that I have raised involving a serious burst of a water main, the quality of the water in the taps and in the rivers, and the effect of untreated sewage, as well as flooding, drainage, and many other questions that I have not raised in detail.
      I raise these matters because they all arise directly from the national joint industrial council. In dealing with new clauses 9 and 10, I hope that the Government will say something helpful about national joint industrial councils.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): Will it be convenient if I intervene at some stage on the first issue that the right hon. Gentleman has raised? I am not sure whether this will be for the convenience of the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply to the general argument that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing in moving the new clause. I shall be happy to intervene if that is convenient.
      Mr. Howell: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I can speak only once and I am about half way through my speech. I shall be happy to give way to the Secretary of State, who rightly discerns that I am moving on to the general principle.
      Mr. King: If it is for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to catch your eye when the right hon. Gentleman has completed his remarks.
      Mr. Howell: I am pleased to hear that. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any encouragement by suggesting that I shall be quicker in the knowledge that he wishes to intervene. I take note of the fact that he is trying helpfully to intervene.
      I move on from the immediate issue, which I think it was right to raise. Indeed, it would have been a dereliction of duty if I had not raised it. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker, for allowing me some latitude.
      The general issue that the new clause raises is the abolition of national negotiating machinery. This will be the inevitable consequence of destroying the National Water Council. In future, under the Bill we shall have 10 nationalised industries instead of one. That will mean that we shall have 10 pieces of negotiating machinery. There will be nine for the English regions and one for Wales instead of the present one.
      We were told in Committee that these matters were being discussed by the chairmen and that they would come to a conclusion. I presume that their decision and the Government's decision will be reported to the House. In my judgment any decision to replace the central joint negotiating machinery in the water industry will be disastrous for the nation. It is inconceivable that anyone can believe that 10 separate water authorities should even consider holding 10 separate series of wage negotiations. The undermining of the national authority of the unions in those circumstances would be extremely embarrassing.
      The action of leapfrogging is well known and is an obvious danger which one would have thought the Government could understand. The most important consequence that will flow from not having national negotiating machinery is that the position of the central negotiators, who have been so responsible over the years in their negotiations, will be undermined. Is that what is wanted? I think sometimes that it is what some Ministers
      250
      want. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is listening to the debate. Having read some of the proposals by the Secretary of State for Employment for the Labour party, I came to the conclusion, as an ex-president of a trade union, that he was seeking to undermine the influence of the moderates within the trade union and labour movement. Irrespective of whether he wants to do that, that will be the inevitable consequence of his proposals. This is another example of people moving into areas that they do not understand and in which they will inflict enormous harm on the very causes and policies that they are seeking to espouse.
      Mr. Robert C. Brown: My right hon. Friend, who has served on a local authority, will understand that the Government's proposals will take us back to the bad old days of the immediate post-war years. During that period I well recall authorities in the north-east fighting for what were then known as sanitary inspectors, who are now described as health inspectors. They offered salaries that were over the odds and sanitary inspectors moved from authority to authority to receive £5 and £10 increases. The local authorities were literally falling over one another to get the staff that they required. this is what will happen in the water industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is nonsensical to set man against man and area against area with people climbing over one another?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Howell: I entirely agree with all those considerations. However, transcending those considerations, which are personal and therefore vital to the people concerned, is the national interest. If we do away with national negotiation we shall undermine the national interest throughout the water industry.
      There has been a period of comparative silence on the matter from the Government. We tried to deal with it in Committee. It was right to table the new clauses because it is essential that the Government have the opportunity to tell us their conclusions and what they are doing. One of the signs that the Government might not be acting in the best interests of the industry is the fact that although they propose to abolish the National Water Council and have nothing to say in the Bill about national joint industrial negotiations, none of the people involved was consulted by the Government about their proposals in the Bill. That resulted in a terrible loss of morale and undermining of confidence.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State will be able to satisfy us on questions that I have been asked to raise by the staff side. Those questions are important to the National Water Council. Will the staff be offered alternative jobs? What are their prospects? Will their pension rights be protected? What about their redundancy payments? Those are all the usual questions. The replies are essential to those individuals, who are entitled to ask the questions.
      One of the other aspects of national joint negotiations that is of great concern is the training programme in the water industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) has a special interest in that matter and talked about it on Second Reading. We have not been told what will happen to the training schemes on the industry, which are of the highest quality and are a great credit to it. They have served us

      251
      well. Is it suggested that the overall training scheme for the industry should be broken up and replaced by ten separate training schemes? I know that some of the regional water authorities would like to do that, but it would not be in the best interests of the country.
      I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak. I have probably spoken for too long. I hope that I shall be excused for that in view of the gravity of the questions that have been raised. We are concerned about the matter. I am glad that the Secretary of State will respond immediately about the strike in the water industry. I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure us that the national joint industrial councils will be maintained with the responsibility for wages, negotiation and training, which the situation demands.
      Mr. King: It might be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly to respond to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in his fair preamble to the new clause about the future negotiating procedures for the water authorities. I hope that the House will be agreeable if I leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reply specifically on the future arrangements and to respond to the new clause. I shall confine myself to commenting on the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks about the current situation, which is germane to negotiating arrangements. I entirely endorse his comments about the gravity of the situation. He is familiar from his own experience with the effects that limited industrial action had in certain parts of the country at the time of the Labour Government.
      As the House knows, the unions concerned have now given notice of certain forms of industrial action immediately, with effect from tonight, with overtime bans and refusal of co-operation, and of a national strike with effect from midnight on Sunday. As the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, both sides are having discussions with ACAS, and I wish to say nothing from the Dispatch Box today that might in any way impede, interfere with or confuse those very important discussions. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman, too, chose his words carefully. I intend to say nothing more about those matters now as they are the subject of direct discussions.
      There are procedures in the water industry for settling disputes and I hope that they can be observed. In view of the gravity of the matters that might otherwise be involved, I think that the country is entitled to expect that those procedures are observed. I hope very much that the Opposition will feel able to lend their support to encouraging the observance of agreed procedures. No one in the House needs any further emphasis of the gravity of what might happen if serious industrial action took place.
      The right hon. Gentleman raised the important question of contingency plans. As soon as we received notice of the decisions taken by the unions at their meeting yesterday, announcing the immediate industrial action that they proposed to take and the fact that from next Sunday they would propose a national strike, the Government took immediate steps to put contingency arrangements in hand. I can inform the House that contingency arrangements, which I imagine are very similar to those that the Labour Government had in place for such situations, were immediately put in hand and troops are on notice of standby to be available. I should say at once that it is my very
      252
      earnest hope that they will not be required and that the matter will be sensibly resolved without any need for their involvement, but I think that the House will agree that in a situation of this kind the Government have a responsibility and that we should have been totally failing in that responsibility if we had not taken precautionary steps.
      As the right hon. Gentleman, who knows as much about these matters as I, will recognise, it is unclear how far such contingency measures can go to meet the situations that might arise. The honest truth is that no one is quite clear what types of situation may arise, their scale and frequency, the work load and the problems that may be posed. The contingency arrangements are not a solution to the problem, but they are the best response that the Government can make in terms of taking precautions at this stage in view of the serious consequences that could arise.
      It is important to make it clear that we face serious disagreements. The water industry and the national joint industrial council have recognised in the past that they could face serious disagreements in their negotiations and discussions and there are procedures for seeking to resolve such disagreements. I hope very much that those procedures will be successful and I trust that it is the hope of the whole House that ACAS will be able to find some basis on which the matter can be resolved sensibly.
      Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He has said twice that there are procedures within the industry for the settlement of disputes. The prerequisite of the settlement of the threatened dispute is the freedom for employers and employees to negotiate freely. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government are prepared to back off and stop leaning on the employers by insisting on the 4 per cent.?
      Mr. King: The trap that the hon. Member is trying to lead me into is a discussion of the merits of the arguments that are being deployed before ACAS. The issue has a long history, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath said when he referred to comparability.
      I shall not go any further into the subject. It has a long history. Many meetings have taken place. There is a substantial divide. That is no secret between the bodies concerned. I may have misheard the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), but I wish to correct a factual point. The offer of arbitration as an alternative was made at the first meeting between the employers and the unions. It has not emerged more recently. That is part of the procedures in the industry. The House will understand that I do not wish to press any further on the subject today.
      The hon. Gentleman fairly asked me about contingency arrangements. It was proper for him to ask, in view of the gravity of the problem. I hope that I have made it clear that those contingency measures have been taken and have now been put in hand. I am sure that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman would wish to have.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for speaking but I am left with a profound sense of disappointment. I appreciate his reply to the contingency planning point. The fact that he spoke about it in isolation,

      253
      apart from any constructive discussion of how we may get out of the negotiation impasse, will lead people to fear the worst.
      The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) made is crucial. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with it. I accept that arbitration may have been offered on the first day of negotiations. In practice, that means that when the trade unions met the employers, they were told that they must accept 4 per cent. or go to arbitration. What is more, the 4 per cent. was offered on the instruction of the Government. In no sense is that free negotiation. That is what has brought us to the present extraordinary circumstances.
      It is essential that the Government do not go into the merits of the negotiations—it would be ludicrous for me to suggest that—but when ACAS goes back to the employers' side tomorrow, it must be able to ask whether they can settle and negotiate freely. That is the only question that a trade union organiser worth his salt is interested in.
      If the Secretary of State does not take this opportunity to clarify that point, his statement will not have helped but will have made a real solution more difficult to achieve. He should have taken this opportunity to say that the negotiators are free to negotiate to the best of their judgment the most sensible settlement that they can achieve for the industry. If he cannot tell us that the negotiators are free to settle—free, that is, from Government interference—I regret that the problem will be even more difficult tomorrow than I thought it would be.
      Mr. King: I am not sure whether that was an intervention or another speech.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I took it to be an intervention.
      Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman has invited me to advance some ideas as to how the dispute might be resolved. I wish to make it clear that, because these matters are currently being considered by ACAS, I have no intention of intervening. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment further. ACAS is holding discussions with each party concerned and it would be irresponsible to comment further.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question. He understands the position very well, and also why it would not be wise for me to comment further.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman listened, he would understand why I shall not give way.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Robert C. Brown: I declare an interest as Secretary of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union group of Members of Parliament. I wish to express my deep concern. We are on the brink of a national stoppage that could result in far worse consequences than have resulted from any other stoppage experienced in Britain. I refer to a stoppage in the water supply and sewage industry. I was encouraged when the Secretary of State intervened, but disappointed with his statement. If anything, he has worsened the position. I hoped that he would say something to give hope for believing that the needless stoppage would not take place.
      254
      I have a letter from Mr. Eddie Newall, the secretary of the national joint industrial council for the industry. He is a national industrial officer in my union. Two-thirds of the 29,000 workers in the industry are organised by the union. He says in his letter:
      "The combined memberships have voted by 4 to 1 to reject the Employers' offer and to authorise strike action in the Industry. The Executive Councils have considered the ballot result and given authority for strike action to secure a satisfactory settlement. Contacts with the Employers since then have made it clear that the Government has, in effect, taken over the decision making in the negotiations and that the Employers have no freedom whatsoever to respond to the desire of the Trade Union Side for a negotiated settlement."
      That is a serious statement, which a responsible individual such as Eddie Newall would not put on paper if it had not been absolutely true, chapter and verse. The letter continued:
      "I should point out that whilst the unions are determined to safeguard public health and safety it is inevitable that if troops are used our members will walk out completely. They have made this clear on several occasions."
      I sincerely hope that the Government take on hoard the seriousness of the nature of the dispute if troops are involved. I must warn the Government that, without the assistance of the professional engineers in the industry, the troops cannot do the job. I was Army Minister for five years, and can claim a little knowledge of the capacity of the technical corps of the British Army. I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no way in which the Army, Navy and Air Force combined can provide the technical know-how to avoid an absolute catastrophe if the dispute goes ahead.
      Mr. Newall continued:
      "The Government seen determined on enforcing a rigid 'pay policy', and denying the Employers the freedom to negotiate a settlement which deals with the specific problems of our industry. It would seem that they are prepared to face up to a major industrial conflict with a group of workers who have never before taken strike action on a National scale, and who have a history of reaching negotiated settlements."
      That shows the serious nature of the issue. Those workers are not a set of industrial hotheads who down tools at the drop of a hat three or four times a year. They are an extremely responsible work force who, in the past, have responded at all times to negotiations and who would do so on this occasion if they were given the opportunity.
      If the strike comes off, there can be no doubt where the responsibility will lie—firmly at the door of the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said, at the general election many trade unionists voted for the Government on the basis of a commitment to free collective bargaining. The water workers are denied the right to negotiate with their employers, the National Water Council. To talk about arbitration at the opening meeting of national negotiations, to make one offer and then to say that it must be arbitration or nothing, makes complete and arrant nonsense of the negotiating procedures in the industry. Arbitration is a long-stop, something that is used when the employers and employees have been locked together in endless hours of negotiation and can make no headway. At that point, they say "We must go to arbitration". They do not say that on the first day of the first meeting.
      It is an open secret that the water employers were prepared to go to that first meeting and to make an offer of about 6 per cent. If that had happened I am convinced that, two or three meetings later, the negotiations would

      255
      have been completed and a settlement reached. There would have been no talk of strike action whatever. However, it goes without saying that the employers were instructed by the Government because the Prime Minister is obsessed with the 4 per cent norm in the public sector. That obsession exists despite the fact that she besmirched herself by the commitment to free collective bargaining that she gave during the 1979 election campaign.
      We all know about the unceremonious way in which the chairman of the National Water Council, Sir Robert Marshall, was bundled out of office, sacked or given the boot. Why? He was not prepared to remain as chairman and to see his industry bedevilled by the Government. The threatened strike could be avoided within hours—I am extremely disappointed with the Secretary of State's statement and the fact that he has now left the debate—if the Government were prepared to return to sanity and to announce tonight that the National Water Council and the NJIC for the industry could get back round the table and recommence, or commence—"recommence" was the wrong word to use—meaningful negotiations. It is scandalous that at this late stage the Government have not sought the permission of Mr. Speaker to make a statement on such a grave threatened dispute.
      I need not describe the scenario of the disaster that will befall the British public if the strike goes ahead. The idea of sewage flowing down Downing Street and Whitehall does not appeal to me, but the idea of sewage flowing down the streets of West Newcastle appeals to me even less. I hope that it will not happen, but it could happen if we reach a precipitous position.
      It angers and worries me that this has happened despite the fact that the water workers are eminently reasonable people. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) is chairman of the Newcastle and Gateshead water company and he knows how reasonable his employees are. The hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement. If the Minister could have said from the Dispatch Box tonight that the Government are prepared to allow the National Water Council and the NJIC to enter into meaningful negotiations without the Government insisting on the 4 per cent.—
      Mr. Don Dixon: Does my hon. Friend accept that the dispute turns the Government's policy on its head? Previously, when public sector workers were in dispute they asked to go to arbitration and were refused by the Government. Now the Government are saying that the water workers must go to arbitration immediately without negotiation. During the National Health Service strike the Government said "Get back round the table". That is exactly what my hon. Friend is asking for the water workers, but the Government have taken an entirely opposite attitude towards them.
      Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is correct to say that in this case the negotiations had not started when the Government said that there must be arbitration, whereas in other public service disputes there were endless hours of negotiaion and arbitration was refused.
      Although the water workers are eminently reasonable, attitudes will harden if a strike starts. I am sure that after two or three meetings between the employers and the employees a reasonable solution could have been agreed without any strike threat. Now we have that threat, but it
      256
      is still possible to avoid the strike. It is imperative that we do so, because once the strike starts and attitudes harden, the individual who might have said "8½ per cent. to 9 per cent. is enough for me", if he has lost a week or two weeks' wages, will say "To yon place with the Government. They will pay for this now. I want my 15 per cent."
      Finally, the leading article of today's edition in Newcastle of The Journal, states:
      "This is a major challenge to the Government's policy on public sector pay—and since we have never lived through a water workers' strike before, it is difficult to calculate what the precise effects will be.
      "Potentially, of course, the consequences for the health of the nation could be very serious indeed—and it must be said that the Government are so far losing the propaganda battle over the four per cent. offer."
      The British people are certainly not behind the Government on the 4 per cent. offer. The editor of the journal concludes by saying:
      "The danger is that the public may now become the victims as the watermen test their determination against the Government's resolve.….unless the new Environment Secretary, Mr. Tom King, can be persuaded to make an eleventh hour intervention."
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That at this day's sitting, the Water Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.——[Mr. Major.]
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that it was inadvertent on his part, but my hon. Friend quite wrongly kept saying that it is the Government's policy to restrict public service increases to 4 per cent. He is quite wrong, It is the poorer paid workers who suffer. The charimen of nationalised boards can get 15 per cent. on their £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000 a year without any question. It is the poorer paid public servants who, apparently, have to be restricted. If they earn thousands of pounds per week, they can get 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. with no questions asked.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). It is true that if one is a senior civil servant, a general, admiral or air marshal one can get 19 per cent. or 20 per cent. from this Government who are committed to a 4 per cent. norm for the public sector and for the manual worker already in receipt of fairly poor pay.
  I echo the plea of the editor of the Newcastle Journal that the Minister of State must intervene. It is no good lying back and saying "The negotiations are at a delicate stage, They are with ACAS now". ACAS can do nothing unless we have a firm assurance from the Goverment tonight that the water employers will have the right to free and untrammelled negotiations with their employees.
  Mr. David Lambie: As a Scottish Member, I shall not follow directly the speeches made by my two hon. Friends who have already spoken. Although wage negotiations for water workers in Scotland are separate from those of their colleagues in England and Wales, I know that the water workers in Scotland would give full support to any action taken by their colleagues in England and Wales.

  257
  I am glad to see a Minister from the Scottish Office present. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not make the same mistakes at the beginning of the wage negotiations with water workers in Scotland that his colleagues at the Department of the Environment made.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland should allow the employers, the regional councils in Scotland, to make a reply to any application for wage increases from the water workers that takes into account the important job that water workers in Scotland and in England and Wales do. The wages of people in this industry have been kept down for too long. They are entitled to better wages and conditions.
  I am interested in the employees of the National Water Council, especially those whose jobs will cease to exist in September 1983 when the National Water Council is abolished. I am interested in the future employment prospects for people in these industries, especially in the training sector. I am also interested in the pension rights and conditions of service that are offered by any future employer.
  On Second Reading, I expressed concern about the future of Melvin House in Kilwinning, in my constituency. I stated that there was nothing in the Bill to say how the present functions of the National Water Council were to be handled after September 1983, when the council ceases to exist. I was particularly interested in training and the future job prospects of my constituents who are employed at Melvin House—one of the National Water Council's training centres which serves the Scottish regional councils' water and sewerage departments, the river purification boards in Scotland and the Department of the Environment's water services in Northern Ireland.
  I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present, because on Second Reading I criticised the absence of Scottish Office Ministers. Even though we were debating an English Bill, there were clauses in it that were of particular interest to Scotland. Following that debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to me stating that the Government expected the water industry to come up with its own proposals for future training arrangements and that the Scottish Development Department had encouraged the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish River Purification Boards Association to enter into discussions with their colleagues in the regional water authorities in England and Wales.
  At the end of November, two regional water authority chairmen—Mr. Mann, chairman of the North-West water authority, and Mr. Matthews, chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, who at that time were developing training proposals on behalf of the chairmen's industry committee—met with representatives of CoSLA's water and sewerage committees. I am told that that meeting was useful, but it emerged that there was a wide spread of views among the regional water authorities about how training should be organised. To assist in developing detailed proposals, the two chairmen set up a small working party of officials, and invited Mr. Devenay, the director of water for Strathclyde regional council, to join the group. That was a good decision, as it provided a Scottish input to the discussions.
  While as yet there are no final and detailed proposals, I am told that the two chairmen have made it clear that in general the regional water authority chairmen are in favour
  258
  of the establishment of a new limited company to take over the National Water Council's training assets and to carry out such central training as is still required, with the Scottish authorities and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment among the shareholders of that company. Such a solution would allow Scottish requirements on training and funding to be accommodated, even if different from the regional water authorities of England and Wales.
  The two regional water authority chairmen are required to present a report on training arrangements to the chairmen's industry committee by the end of January. If approved, it will be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Environment. When the Secretary of State for Scotland considers this report, I hope that he will push for training on a national scale to be continued and for Melvin House, with its great traditions, to be retained as the northern training centre.
  I accept that there have been recent and justifiable criticisms about the present training facilities and that these have been expressed in the chairmen's industry committee. However, I stress that none of those criticisms applies to the services supplied by Melvin House and its staff.
  If a limited company is established to take over the National Water Council's training assets, it follows that the staff at Melvin House will, after September 1983, be employed by that limited company. That is why these amendments are important, because they try to give protection to former employees of the National Water Council after it ceases to exist.
  It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that an offer of employment is made, not later than the day following the day the council ceases to exist, to the staff of Melvin House by the new employers, the proposed limited company. The present terms and conditions of employment and pension rights must be continued in any future organisation. The negotiated agreements should be respected and, if there are disputes, they should, as suggested in new clause 9, be referred for discussion to new arbitration machinery.
  The proposals in new clauses 9 and 10 do not go far enough but at least they would give safeguards to the staff employed in Melvin House and the other training establishments. That is why I am speaking as a Scottish Member in this predominantly English and Welsh debate in support of the employment prospects of constituents who are employed in the training services of the National Water Council.
  Mr. Durant: I should like to intervene briefly following on what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has said about the training side of the industry. I had the honour recently to visit a training establishment for the water industry, Flint House, at Goring near my constituency. The people there are concerned about their future, as are those in all the other training establishments. I do not think that they are any more anxious than the rest.
  The Government should make a statement soon. There are jobs at stake and the people want to know what will happen. We have learnt from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire about some of the steps that are being taken. This was revealing to me; I had not heard it. We ought to know more about the steps that are to be taken. I hope that the working party mentioned by the hon. Member will give

  259
  favourable consideration to places like Flint House. It is a small establishment, but it covers one of the widest training areas. It is always the small establishments that get nervous when matters like this are involved. I make a special plea on its behalf that as soon as possible the Government should make clear what will happen on the training side. Those in the water industry are skilled people, and training is essential. The training carried out at these establishments is of a high standard. I hope that they will continue under whatever system is worked out. The sooner everyone knows what is to happen, the better.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is with some regret that I have to refer to the behaviour of the Secretary of State in this debate. It was particularly discourteous of him to make his statement and then leave the Chamber before listening to the Opposition's comments, particularly the well-informed comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown). The Secretary of State owed to the House the courtesy to listen for at least a few minutes. One has the suspicion that he is out busily trying to manage the reporting of his speech. Having perhaps felt he did not do very well in the House he wants to make sure that the media put the most sympathetic gloss on it.
  The right hon. Gentleman ought to have given an undertaking to continue to keep the House informed about the progress on negotiations and of the contingency plans. He should have said that he would seek, either on Thursday of Friday, to make a statement to the House. It is the least that we on this side of the House can demand. If the Minister was not prepared to say any more tonight, he should have been prepared to undertake to make a statement later in the week on both the negotiations and the contingency plans.
  Many of my constituents in the north-west of England who did not themselves experience the problems of the unofficial disputes in the spring of 1979 but who were close to those problems and heard them reported by the media are extremely alarmed that similar problems may occur in their area and throughout the country. There is very little possibility of the Government being able to produce contingency plans which could cope on a national scale.
  At the same time, many of my constituents who work in the water industry are extremely bitter about the length of time that they have been hearing people say that they should be compared with other public utilities when it is a matter of rebates and so on, but as soon as wage negotiations arise when they want a comparison to be made with the rates that are paid for similar jobs in the gas and electricity industries they are told that it is nothing to do with them and that there should be no comparability.
  10.15 pm
  The Government must make a better offer through the water undertakings and must do so quickly to satisfy the legitimate demands of the people in the water industry who cannot be fobbed off any longer. They want that extra offer to be made as soon as possible. The Government have a duty to ensure that that offer is made before a national dispute occurs rather than afterwards. It has been made clear that it is much easier to get a sensible offer accepted before rather than after a dispute. In view of the great difficulties which would arise from such a dispute, the
  260
  Government owe it to the country to ensure that an offer is made quickly. The Government also owe it to the House to guarantee that they will, on Thursday or Friday, make a progress report on the negotiations.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: New clause 9 sets out a clear and sensible approach to national wage negotiations by creating a central bargaining machine. It will prevent a leapfrogging arrangement which, in the minds of some water workers today, may be one reason why they feel sufficiently provoked into possibly taking full industrial action next Monday with the possible total withdrawal of their labour.
  As a result of having observed other industrial disputes, may I predict what will happen? If the Government allow matters to deteriorate to the point where there is a full withdrawal of labour next week, and as the Bill has yet to attain the approval of their Lordships, they may seek further to amend it in the light of likely developments over the next days, weeks or months.
  It is an interesting precedent that we are perhaps on the eve of a national withdrawal of labour at the same time as the Bill is passing through the House. Many of the difficulties and confusions that exist in the minds of water workers today stem from the clear undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Government during the last general election that the Government subscribed to principles of free collective bargaining.
  Water workers nationally know of those press reports which were adequately presented in the Financial Times in late November, when it was alleged that the former Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, had telephoned different persons involved in the negotiations throughout Britain, and also representatives of the National Water Council, to ensure that the 6 per cent. offer that was being implied was not made. Indeed, only a 4 per cent. offer was made. There remains in the minds of many water workers nationally the belief that additional money has been on the table, that it is there still to be offered, and that it is only the Government who are preventing that fuller offer from being made.
  The Government were elected on principles of free collective bargaining that I and some of my hon. Friends oppose. I think that it was Sid Weighell who described free collective bargaining as the politics of the pig trough, those with the biggest snouts getting the lion's share. However, that is not the key issue today. The water workers believe that undertakings that were given to them by the Labour Government and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) would have given them comparability with gas and electricity workers and were reasonable. They felt that this Government should have complied with those arrangements. If they are reticent about arbitration today, it is because they believe that the Government should be negotiating directly with them, prior to any arbitration, with a view to establishing the objectives set for them some years ago.
  Mr. Mick Martin, the public services national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, said:
  "The Government have made arbitration a dirty word by refusing it in the Civil Service dispute two years ago and in last year's health dispute and refusing in other cases to implement arbitration awards."
  In part, that may well be why such suspicion exists in the minds of the water workers.

  261
  I sound a note of caution on the eve of possible industrial action. I am told that members of the National Union of Public Employees voted by four to one in favour of the industrial action. Some of us have observed industrial action at close quarters. I remember one instance of industrial action in the steel industry very well, because my constituency was affected. During the National Health Service dispute there was a fairly substantial disruption of services in the west of the county in which my constituency lies and feelings were strong. I also remember the Civil Service dispute. Some clear conclusions can be drawn. For example, such industrial action works only when the Government are conscious of the need to preserve the social fabric. That is what I call playing by the rules. The Government must understand that they are under an obligation to preserve that social fabric.
  However, that will, understanding, determination and commitment are not to be found in this Government. There is a recklessness in the Government's attitude towards the preservation of the social fabric. Some of us observed from a distance but took note of what happened when there was a threat of a miners' strike. Some of us also believe that the Prime Minister would have allowed disruption, would not have compromised, and would have let the social fabric be totally undermined in her obsessive belief that to win is to be right and that to comprise is to be wrong.
  The NHS dispute was a good example of that. Tens of thousands of people were added to the waiting lists of hospitals, yet there were no groans of pain from Downing Street or from the DHSS. Ministers seemed unaffected. They blamed the trade unions and refused to accept any responsibility.
  Even in the Civil Service dispute, it was a Committee that established that the arrears to the Exchequer were about £1 billion. I am sure that I shall be corrected if I am wrong. At the time, we were being given clear signals from the Treasury that there were no problems. It was only afterwards, when the sums were added up, that we saw the great losses to the Exchequer as a result of the industrial action. Even in those conditions, the Government persisted and did not give way.
  The trade unions should be careful and deliberate because the present Government do not play by the normal rules of a Government managing a civilised society. They believe that they can cheat and that they do not have an obligation to the public to preserve the social fabric of the nation.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: It will not come as a surprise to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that we consider it unnecessary for there to be statutory requirements for the arrangements to be made for the negotiation and agreement on pay and other terms and conditions of service. The parties should be free to establish whatever machinery they consider appropriate and to change it by mutual agreement if and when circumstances require. They will no doubt wish to consider the various options that are available.
  I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance, which is wanted at the moment, that the Government do not wish to impose a particular structure of pay bargaining on the parties. Much has been made by hon. Members, and to some extent by the right hon. Gentleman, of the belief that one interpretation of the major objectives of the Bill is that we wish to get rid of national pay bargaining and introduce
  262
  regionalised negotiation in the water industry. If that were our intention, we could have legislated for it. It is open to all interested parties, including Government and the Opposition, to take and express their views on the arguments for and against pay bargaining at regional or national level, and that is fully understood. I emphasise that it is not our intention to impose our point of view by legislative means.
  Certain other matters were raised in connection with this clause. The right hon. Member for Small Heath asked, in particular, about pensions. The Yorkshire water authority is to be designated under the local government superannuation regulations as the administrating body for the water industry pension fund. The water authorities and the Department of the Environment, are considering what arrangements are possible to delegate responsibilities for effective managerial control of the fund to a committee of representatives from all the water authorities. The designation to the Yorkshire water authority will be effected before the National Water Council is abolished, and the machinery for the payment of pensions will be preserved intact. That is an important consideration.
  With regard to training, I was glad to hear how well informed the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was in the discussions on Melvin House. He will be aware from what my hon. Friend has passed on to him that this has been given full consideration. The matter of training has not yet been completed by the consideration of the chairman's committee. The existing training scheme will have to cease when the council is wound up.
  The water authority chairmen are still considering the central requirements for training after that time. We understand that there will be some provision for central training, but the precise scale and the number of staff and training centres required still remains to be resolved. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will now know, the provisions for the requirements of Scotland and Northern Ireland will be considered in the final proposals. We expect a conclusion on this matter from the chairmen in early February and arrangements will be made for the proper information to be established.
  The right hon. Member for Small Heath mentioned staffing levels. It is too early to report to the House what will be the consequences for central staffing as a result of the establishment of the association of water authority chairmen, but I fully understand the anxiety of getting this decision through quickly so that everybody will be informed. I advise the right hon. Gentleman that the absolute numbers to be employed centrally will be significantly fewer than those employed currently in the National Water Council.
  I advise the House to resist the new clause. The arrangements for pay and bargaining will, and should, be left to the determination of the water authority chairmen in discussion with trade union representatives. I shall see that the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on the intervention of my right hon. Friend are passed on to my right hon. Friend. I can assure him that the House will be kept properly informed of developments.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: By leave of the House, I should like briefly to respond to the remarks of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State in this important

  263
  debate. I found both contributions profoundly disappointing. While the Secretary of State mentioned contingency planning, it is a matter of great regret that he chose deliberately to say nothing about the essential questions facing the negotiators in this potentially damaging strike, due to start on Sunday.
  The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the reversal of the Government's attitude on arbitration. This is bound to be the cause of considerable suspicion among the unions. Why can arbitration be offered on day one to the water workers when it has been consistently refused over the past two years in respect of Health Service and Civil Service workers?
  I could not have put more clearly the questions that it is essential to answer. Are the negotiators free to negotiate? It is sad that the Secretary of State refused to answer that question. It is also potentially very damaging. Are they free agents? Unless the Government make clear that they are free agents, there can be no significant progress. The silence of the Secretary of State was deafening. That may be very damaging. If no progress is made within the next 48 hours, the House will have to return again to this issue.
  I must also record my disappointment with the reply of the Under-Secretary of State on whether the national joint industrial negotiating machinery is to be maintained. It seems to me inconceivable that the Under-Secretary cannot say tonight what is the Government's attitude on this vital question. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the Government do not wish to impose any one system of wage bargaining on the industry. In response to my argument about the necessity to maintain the national joint industrial negotiating machinery, the hon. Gentleman said, if I quote him accurately, that the Government do not wish to impose any one system of wage bargaining upon the new association of water chairmen. What does that mean?
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I stated that the Government would not wish to legislate and to impose upon this industry its form of central or regional wage negotiations. I made it clear that the chairmen of the regional water authorities, as now formed into the association, in negotiation, no doubt, with the trade unions, will determine what form of central or regional bargaining structure they wish to have.
  Mr. Howell: I am bound to repeat my question: what does that mean? If one regional water authority says that it does not intend to go into any central wage negotiating machinery which the other authorities want to do, does it mean that that water authority can stand alone and conduct its own individual negotiations? If that is what it means, it will be a disaster for the water industry.
  Mr Shaw: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right.
  Mr. Howell: If I am right, surely the Government should have a view on the matter and legislate on that basis. They should say that they want a national joint industrial council. If Anglia, the North-West, or any other regional water authority wanted to go it alone, it would destroy any suggestion of collective responsibility in the water industry. I am bound to record my profound disappointment at the situation that the Under-Secretary has revealed.
  264
  What the Under-Secretary said about training was helpful, and we await developments. As we both acknowledge, this is a matter of great importance.
  The Under-Secretary made it clear tonight, in his brief reference to the staffing question, that there will be considerable redundancies in the National Water Council. It is a matter of great regret. One would have thought that it was possible to utilise methods of natural wastage. I hope that the chairman will do that, and try to find jobs for people who have served the industry well and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy unless some collective responsibility is accepted by the chairman. I am glad to see the Minister nodding, and I trust that he will use his best endeavours to bring that about.
  We are discussing a matter of great importance. It is probably the most vital issue in the whole Bill, on the eve of the proposed water strike. I urge all my hon. Friends to register their disgust at the situation which the Government have contrived, by their direct intervention, by voting for new clause 10.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 268.

  Division No. 43]

  [10.36 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Dunnett, Jack

  Adams, Allen

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Allaun, Frank

  Eastham, Ken

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  English, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ewing, Harry

  Beith, A. J.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Fitch, Alan

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ford, Ben

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Foster, Derek

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

  Foulkes, George

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

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

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Campbell, Ian

  George, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Golding, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gourlay, Harry

  Cant, R. B.

  Graham, Ted

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Cohen, Stanley

  Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Conlan, Bernard

  Haynes, Frank

  Cook, Robin F.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cowans, Harry

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

  Cox, T. (Wdsw'th, Toot'g)

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

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Homewood, William

  Cryer, Bob

  Hooley, Frank

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Huckfield, Les

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dewar, Donald

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dixon, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Dobson, Frank

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Dormand, Jack

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Douglas, Dick

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  265

  Kerr, Russell

  Robertson, George

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lamond, James

  Roper, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Sever, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Silverman, Julius

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  McElhone, Mrs Helen

  Snape, Peter

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Soley, Clive

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Spearing, Nigel

  McKelvey, William

  Spriggs, Leslie

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Stallard, A. W.

  McWilliam, John

  Stoddart, David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

  Straw, Jack

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tilley, John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Tinn, James

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Torney, Tom

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Warden, Gareth

  Newens, Stanley

  Weetch, Ken

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Welsh, Michael

  O'Neill, Martin

  White, Frank R.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Park, George

  Whitlock, William

  Parker, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Parry, Robert

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Pendry, Tom

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

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Prescott, John

  Winnick, David

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Woodall, Alec

  Race, Reg

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Wright, Sheila

  Richardson, Jo

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Mr. George Morton and

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Mr. Ioan Evans.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Arnold, Tom

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bright, Graham

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Brinton, Tim

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

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

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Banks, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Bendall, Vivian

  Buck, Antony

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Budgen, Nick

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Butcher, John

  Best, Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Blackburn, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Blaker, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Body, Richard

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

  266

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lamont, Norman

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lang, Ian

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Latham, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Colvin, Michael

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Cope, John

  Lee, John

  Corrie, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Critchley, Julian

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

  Crouch, David

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Loveridge, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacGregor, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Elliott, Sir William

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Major, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Marland, Paul

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

  Mather, Carol

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Mellor, David

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

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gardner, Sir Edward

  Moate, Roger

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moore, John

  Gow, Ian

  Morgan, Geraint

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

  Murphy, Christopher

  Greenway, Harry

  Myles, David

  Grieve, Percy

  Neale, Gerrard

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Newton, Tony

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Osborn, John

  Hannam, John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Parris, Matthew

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pawsey, James

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Henderson, Barry

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pollock, Alexander

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Porter, Barry

  Hill, James

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hooson, Tom

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Horam, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

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

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Tim

  Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rossi, Hugh

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rost, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  267

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Trippier, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Richard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Silvester, Fred

  Viggers, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Waddington, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wakeham, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Speller, Tony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Spence, John

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walters, Dennis

  Sproat, Iain

  Ward, John

  Squire, Robin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stainton, Keith

  Watson, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Steen, Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Stevens, Martin

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Stokes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wolfson, Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Thompson, Donald

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. David Hunt.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Clause 1

      CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF WATER AUTHORITIES
      The Under Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'State' to 'authority' in line 6 and insert
      'shall designate a member of each water authority as deputy chairman of that'.
      This amendment meets the commitment given in Committee on 2 December to examine again the wording of clause 3(3), which would have conferred on the Secretary of State the power to designate one or more members of a water authority as a deputy chairman of the authority. As the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said, that would have allowed the Secretary of State to designate no deputy chairman, one deputy chairman or more than one deputy chairman in different authorities. The amendment makes the position clear: the Secretary of State is to designate one, and only one, member as deputy chairman of each authority.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) In Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 (matters not subject to investigation by Local Commissioner) the following paragraph is added at the end—
      "6. Any action taken by a water authority (within the meaning of the Water Act 1973) otherwise than in connection with—

      (a) any matter which is the subject of arrangements made with a local authority under section 15 of the Act of 1973 (arrangements for discharge of sewerage functions by other authorities); or

      (b) those of their land drainage functions which are, by virtue of section 1 of the Land Drainage Act 1976, to be discharged by their regional land drainage committee."'

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2), and Government amendments Nos. 29, 33, 35 and 36.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments arise out of the discussion in Committee about the role of the Commissioner for Local Administration—the local ombudsman.
      As I explained in Committee, the main provision of clause 1 alters the constitution of water authorities so fundamentally that it is necessary to make these changes. Whereas at present a majority of members is appointed by local authorities, in future all members will be appointed by the Secretary of State and, although there will be some local government members, they will be only a small component.
      I promised the Committee that we would ensure that the local ombudsman's remit would not be removed until the new consumer consultative committees were in operation. The amendment will enable the Secretary of State to implement the changes to the local ombudsman's remit whenever he chooses, and I assure the House that we shall not end that remit until the new committees are in being.
      Concern was expressed about cases where local authorities and water authorities were both engaged in the same area of business. The two cases are sewerage, where local authorities in most areas discharge the sewerage responsibilities of water authorities, and land drainage, for which both local authorities and water authorities have responsibilities. Concern was expressed that, whereas a local ombudsman might investigate a local authority's part in a particular sewerage or land drainage matter, under the Bill as it stands if he wished to continue his investigations into any part played by the water authority he would not be able to do so. We accepted that this was an anomaly and that the ombudsman should not find an investigation brought up short in this way but should be able to follow it through to a conclusion.
      I am pleased to tell the House that the amendments are designed to meet the point. Their effect is simply to allow the local ombudsman to investigate a water authority in respect of any sewerage matter arising where there is a sewerage agency which accounts for about 400 local authorities out of 450 in England. The amendments also allow him to investigate a water authority in respect of any land drainage matter. In short, the amendments represent a useful improvement to the Bill brought about by our discussions in Committee, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Alec Jones: Although Government amendment No. 4 fulfils the undertaking given by the Minister in Committee, it does not meet the charge that the Bill materially reduces the rights of individuals, certainly as they were exercisable through the local government commissioner. Most Members who spoke in the Committee debate took the view that a whole range of water authority activities should remain subject to investigation by the ombudsman. Many people in this country have valued that right and if there are weaknesses in the ombudsman argument in that it relates only to maladministration, it would seem far more reasonable to improve and strengthen his role rather than to weaken it as the Bill does.
      Government amendment No. 4 means that certain matters that are the joint responsibility of water authorities

      269
      and local authorities—sewerage and land drainage functions—will remain subject to investigation by the ombudsman, and we are grateful for that. Nevertheless, even with that amendment, the new subsection (2) still means that rights will be removed that individuals have enjoyed for many years. The right to put complaints to the ombudsman was given to water consumers by Parlaiment in 1974 and very few of us see any reason why it should be removed.
      The fact remains that water consumers frequently feel aggrieved by the activities of these large and sometimes remote organisations. In many cases the area covered is very large, so remoteness is a major factor, and very few ordinary members of the public are aware of the membership of water authorities. An individual's right to take a complaint of maladministration to the ombudsman is one that the House ought not to throw away lightly. The importance of the ombudsman is as an organisation or person to whom people can complain. It is an independent agency and not part of the water authority set-up. It has investigative powers and power to publish a report. That is a strong defence for the individual water consumer against the much larger and more powerful water authorities.
      The only defence that the Government have been able to advance is that that provision is no longer necessary with the wonderful consumer committees which will do the job that is now being done by the ombudsman. The consultative consumer committees are no replacement for the ombudsman. The independence and investigative powers of the ombudsman are its two main features. Nobody can argue that the committees have the same powers. Their independence is a myth. It depends on the water authorities. The staffing of the committees depends entirely on the water authorities. The details that their investigative powers require also depend on the water authorities. They are no replacement for the ombudsman.
      That is why we believe that the powers of the ombudsman should be retained. That is the purpose of our amendment. If the Government had any concern for the right of the individual to complain against the water authorities, they would not wish to remove those powers. Rather they would wish to increase them.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5

      OVERSEAS ACTIVITIES OF WATER AUTHORITIES AND STATUTORY WATER COMPANIES
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, leave out lines 41 and 42.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 17.
      Mr. Roberts: The amendment tidies up the definition of a statutory water company.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6

      ARRANGEMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS
      Mr. Durant: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 8 after 'to', insert '(a)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 10 at end insert—
      '(b) the means proposed by any water authority for ensuring that a proper proportion of any additional work that would be undertaken by that authority as a result of the ending or, as the case may be, varying of the arrangements in question, and proposed to be carried out by direct labour, would he subject to competitive tender.'.
      Mr. Durant: The sewer work that is currently carried out by local authorities is subject to the direct labour section of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It lays down accountancy and competition requirements, including compulsory competition for all such work that is valued at more than £50,000. No such requirement applies to the water authorities, although many of them require, through their own standing orders, that there be compulsory competition for work that is valued at more than £600,000. That is clearly unsatisfactory from the point of view of competition.
      The Water Bill would, to some extent, worsen the problem. After consultation, it would make it possible for agency arrangements to be wound up. That means that work that has previously been carried out by local authorities and which is subject to competition would be carried out by water authorities which are not subject to competition, except voluntarily.
      The amendment would ensure that Ministers would at least satisfy themselves that the new arrangements are as effective as the existing ones. Direct labour by water authorities is a large-scale business. Ministers calculate that roughly 10 per cent. of capital expenditure is carried out by direct labour organisations. That represents about £80 million each year. In addition, an unquantifiable amount of maintenance work is carried out by direct labour organisations. That may represent some £400 million.
      The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, which has advanced this suggestion, would like there to be complete application of the local government direct labour organisation rules to water authorities. It therefore hopes that the amendment might be accepted so that they are brought in line with local authorities, which the Government have dealt with in previous legislation.
      11 pm
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) that public bodies should ensure that their work is put out to competitive tendering whenever that is appropriate. We carefully considered the merits of including a provision extending to water authorities statutory competition requirements such as those applying to local authority direct labour organisations, including their sewerage activities. We decided on balance against that course. However, we have agreed with water authority chairmen that a code of practice will be drawn up to ensure adequate competition.
      My hon. Friend's amendments do not deal directly with the subject but seek to make it a factor that the Secretary of State must take into account in deciding appeals. While it may be important in deciding the balance of costs between a water authority and a local authority, I do not believe it right to single it out among all the other relevant factors to be taken into account. I ask my how Friend to accept that the Government are committed to ensuring competition where it is sensible, and to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Durant: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 5, line 36, leave out 'further'.
      No. 14, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'or further report'. No. 15, in page 6, line 23, at end insert—
      '(8A) In subsection (1) above "consumers" include persons who use or are likely to use, for the purposes of recreation, any water or land associated with water in respect of which the water authority in question are under the duty imposed by section 20 above.'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

    Clause 8

      REPEAL OF WATER CHARGES EQUALISATION ACT 1977
      Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 32, at end insert—
      '(c) that adequate arrangements have been made to ensure that non-metered water consumers pay reasonably comparable rates for their water supply.'.
      I am sure that the amendment was expected by hon. Members on both sides of the House following our debate in Committee and the miserable response from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.
      Few people can deny that there is a sense of unfairness—not only in Wales but throughout Britain—about the system of charging for water supplies. That sense of unfairness has, as I am sure the Under-Secretary will willingly concede, reached the point of outrage in Wales. I gave figures in Committee that showed the wide disparity of water charges in Wales compared with the England and Wales average. It has been shown consistently that the charges for water in Wales have been about twice the average charge for England and Wales combined.
      It is not only a question of being unfair to Welsh water consumers. If the system continues, it will be a threat to the water industry and the planning and sensible use of vital and essential natural resources. If there is a lesson to be learnt, it should be from the 1976 drought. There are occasions, and that was one, when we need to be able to transfer water from areas of plenty to areas of shortage. It was our experience then that if the drought had continued much longer the changes in the distribution of water to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom had enough would have been considerable indeed.
      If the free transfer is necessary—I believe and accept that it is—it depends upon a national policy. With the abolition of the National Water Council it is difficult to envisage how that will be achieved under the Government's proposals. It also depends upon cooperation between water authorities and on the good will of those who live in areas that have abundant water supplies. In Wales, that good will has been deliberately dissipated by the Government through their decision to abolish the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977 and through the announcement by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee that the Government found it impossible to devise a fair equalisation scheme. As that good will is dissipated, so the threat to the free transfer of water grows.
      I do not condone the recent action by a minority in Wales, but the Government have themselves to blame for many of the problems that are developing there. The Government have consistently, not only through the Welsh Office but through other Departments, admitted that there
      272
      is a problem. The newly appointed Secretary of State told the Tory party conference in 1980 that he recognised the unfairness under the present charging system and that the Government intended to find a fairer scheme. Nothing has been done about that.
      The Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Grand Committee in July 1979 that water authorities were an issue of major current concern in Wales. It was of such major current concern that even now, in 1983, the Government have not only managed to do nothing about the matter but have made the position infinitely worse. Not only have they failed to remedy the defects which they admit exist but they have made the position worse by clause 8, which repeals the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977.
      Many odd reasons are given as to why the Government can do nothing. Water is now apparently considered to be an industry. I shall argue that point, which may be theoretical, but both gas and electricity are considered as industries and we do not see the wide disparity of charges for those utilities that we do for water. If one took the opposite view and said that water was more of a service than an industry, one could equally say that we did not have the same wide disparity of charges between services such as the Post Office and British Telecommunications.
      If it is the correct way of charging to ensure that, inside the boundaries of each water authority, water equalisation shall prevail, why is it wrong to have no system of equalisation across the boundaries between each water authority?
      I admitted in Committee—I have said it many times —that when we introduced the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977 we did not expect it to last for ever. We believed that its effects and the benefits that accrued to the Welsh water authority and to other authorities would wear off in time. However, the Act should be repealed only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that reasonably comparable rates are applied for non-metered water supplies. That is not an outrageous suggestion. British people, wherever they live, as equal citizens, should have largely equitable charges for essential services such as gas, electricity, postal services or water.
      The present charges in Wales are far from reasonable and certainly far from comparable. That is not because of any inefficiency on the part of the Welsh water authority.
      I notice that in Committee the Under-Secretary said that a new measure to equalise water charges would tend to encourage the wasteful use of resources and lead the water authorities to be less efficient than they would otherwise be.
      The high charges for domestic consumers in Wales have nothing to do with any inefficiency by the Welsh water authority, but are due to the higher costs of distribution in Wales, which are a factor of geography and little or nothing else. That was something that came out very strongly in the report of the Daniel committee, set up by the previous Government, which led to the Water Equalisation Act.
      Comments have been made on the problem in Wales. Welsh Members will be aware of the role played by Mr. Haydn Rees, who had been the chairman of the Welsh water authority and the man who had had considerable experience in local government and in public life in Wales. The last annual report issued by the Welsh water authority when Mr Rees was the chairman stated:

      273
      "As I have publicly stated on several occasions, whatever decision is reached I personally believe that sooner or later—and the sooner the better—our legislators will have to realise that the water services industry is the only important public utility service that does not have either a common base charge or an equalisation of charges. That this, the most important, civilised and civilising of all the public services should not have similar treatment is, I believe, unacceptable and inequitable to the people in the area in which we serve."
      It is true that the present system of charging in Wales is inequitable; because it is inequitable, it is unacceptable.
      It is no good the Under-Secretary or anyone else suggesting that there is no alternative. A variety of alternatives have been put forward at various times.
      One alternative would have been to allow the Welsh water authority to charge more for the water which is exported. That was turned down by the Government. Another alternative would be a return to the principles, or something like them, of the Water Equalisation Act. That has been turned down by the Government. Another alternative would have been rebates. An amendment to that effect was tabled, but unfortunately was not called. The fourth alternative is a form of capital debt write-off.
      It is not true that there are no alternatives. The alternatives may not be acceptable or pleasant to the Government, but there are ways if the Government were to try to meet what they genuinely accept to be a problem in Wales—the unacceptable and inequitable nature of water charges.
      Despite all the crocodile tears of the Under-Secretary, I recall that in July 1979 the Secretary of State for Wales admitted in the Welsh Grand Committee that water charges in Wales were a major current problem. Nothing has been done by the Government.
      The majority of the people in Wales are far more concerned with the level of charges than they are with the structure, and now find that a new quango has been devised in total contradiction to the Minister's views on quangos when he sat on Opposition Benches.
      Not only has nothing been done by this Government, but nothing will be done for Wales and for water consumers in Wales as long as we have a Government of this persuasion. When we return to office, a Labour Government will remove this injustice. We will restore a water equalisation scheme so that water charges, like gas, electricity and the postal service, are broadly in line throughout the United Kingdom. By doing that, we shall deal fairly and justly not only with Welsh water consumers but with water consumers throughout the United Kingdom and at the same time safeguard the efficient use of the nation's water supply.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: I always like to follow the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). I should like to ask what he will do if ever the Labour Party is returned to power. Although he indulged in a clear and specific condemnation of the negation enshrined in the clause, in that it destroys any residual legislation that would make for equalisation, he was unable to say that the next Labour Government will legislate for complete equalisation on water charges, at least throughout England and Wales.
      I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give that assurance, because there has been speculation in the press and elsewhere that the Labour Party in England is trying to develop a policy to return the water service to local
      274
      government. That would enable the water service to be maintained as part of the local government system and, therefore, subject to the rate support grant.
      There have been other attempts within the Labour Party at some kind of regional policy, including the idea of elected regional tiers, I am not sure where that proposal now stands, but that would create another option whereby it might be possible to have democratically elected regional tiers of government that could take control of the water industry regionally. There could then be equitable redistribution of both water and its costs.
      I advance those two propositions for the right hon. Member for Rhondda to think about, and if he wishes to intervene in my brief speech, I shall be happy to give way.
      On Second Reading I tried to set out some of the options then available to the Government. Since then, we have had another negation—the announcement of nothing by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, who have thrown the ball back to the Welsh water authority, the Severn/Trent water authority and the North-West water authority. If accepted, the amendment would open up a number of alternatives. As I have just said, it would return control of water to local government, therby ensuring that the water service could be subject to RSG as a form of redistribution of costs and benefits of supply.
      Another option is complete equalisation. I am certain that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is an avid viewer of the Welsh channel four. He will have seen on "Y Byd ar Bedwar", "The World on 4", the current affairs programme produced by HTV, the new chairman of the Welsh water authority declare in favour of equalisation. To the extent that he can indicate a policy option, he did so. He referred to the invidious position between different utilities, whereby there is almost complete equalisation among utility charges such as gas and electricity but no such equality between water charges. That clearly shows where he stands and where his authority would stand.
      The attempt to secure a higher level of return from the Severn-Trent water authority and the North-West water authority was the only option available in the context of policy laid down by the Government. The failure of the Government to adjudicate clearly as between Severn-Trent water authority, the North-West water authority and the Welsh water authority, as they had a responsibility to do, and the throwing of the whole issue back to the Welsh water authority is an indication that the Government are prepared to do precisely what I alleged at Second Reading, to regard the different level of charge between Wales and the regions in England which are served from Welsh reservoirs as being legitimate and acceptable.
      When the Prime Minister decides to call the election—no doubt it will be her decision and hers alone as in so many other things with this Government—thousands of Welsh consumers will respond by rejecting a party that is prepared to allow those inequitable differentials to remain.
      The other option is to allow a commercial free-for-all in water transference. Many Welsh domestic consumers will have seen with interest the recent proposal to start exporting United Kingdom water to Arab countries at a commercial rate. The Welsh water authority and many consumers in Wales will have seen what the new market value of water is. If the Government are committed, as they are in most areas of their policy, to an out-and-out market value and ensuring a full commercial return, no doubt they will be prepared to allow the Welsh water

      275
      authority, if it wishes, to go to the Severn-Trent water authority and demand the levels of water charges that are likely to be offered commercially by those who want to import water from the United Kingdom.
      The fact that this amendment is likely to be rejected by the Government shows that they are not prepared to meet the real differential. They are prepared to tolerate a situation whereby Welsh consumers are unfairly exploited. For the historical, emotional and, indeed, justifiable reasons of community resentment that I set out on Second Reading, it is reprehensible that the Government should take this view.
      It is as a direct result of Government policy that many consumers in Wales are either unable or unwilling to pay the inflated water charges. A community, or individuals, resort to forms of direct action only when it is apparent that a constitutional response on the part of Government is not forthcoming. It is regrettable in the view of the Government that people should resort to forms of direct action, including the withholding of payments. I take the view that when a Government who have no mandate in Wales and who clearly do not represent the interests of the majority of the Welsh people are not prepared to respond sympathetically—
      Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the hon. Member seriously contending that if the views that he expresses are not immediately translated into action by the Government, even though his views are supported by an insignificant minority of the people in Wales, there is any justification whatever for breaking the law? If so, then he has to face up to the consequences that others may take it into their heads to defy legislation requiring the teaching of Welsh in schools, which is very much resented by the English majority in a great many regions. It is only because the people of Wales on the whole are law-abiding that there has been such progress in the teaching of Welsh in the schools.
      Mr. Thomas: I am aware that this is not a debate on the teaching of Welsh. However, one local authority in Wales is, I believe, in serious breach of the law and so far the Department responsible has not acted.
      However, I understand from the figures made available that about 20,000 people in Wales have not paid their water bills this year in full. That shows that at least a significant proportion of the population feels strongly about the issue. I tried to say that of course there was in general an obligation on members of the community to abide by that community's laws. There is also an obligation on the authority in a community to be responsive towards minority demands. The test of a democracy—whether in the United Kingdom or anywhere else—is the extent to which it can maintain the will of the majority while ensuring that the rights of minority groups and regions are respected.
      In that sense, the Government should reconsider their view. Otherwise, it will serve only further to alienate water consumers in Wales and will increase exploitation of Welsh resources by those regions outside Wales that take advantage of them. I do not want law-breaking campaigns to increase. However, when a Government refuse to respond to the demands of consumers and are unable to adjudicate in regional conflicts, minorities that feel hard-pressed by the level of wather charges will want
      276
      to assert their position. It is not as if this is a new issue. It has been controversial for as long as I and most hon. Members can remember.
      The issue is being scrutinised by the Welsh Affairs Committee. Those of us who are not members of that Committee regret that the report has not yet been forthcoming. It would not be in order to comment on that now, but press reports suggest that this is the result of a difference of opinion between Conservative and Opposition Members on the Committee. We assume that the Committee would adopt a slightly more critical line than the Welsh Office or its supporters are prepared to accept. As a member of another Select Committee, I regret that the deliberations of that Select Committee should be held back for that reason. The Select Committee's report was seen in Wales as an opportunity to scrutinise an area of policy and to make constructive recommendations for ending the conflict between domestic consumers and the regions outside Wales that take advantage of our water resources.
      This issue will not go away. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister wishes to intervene. I see that he cannot take it. The issue of the water supply and natural resources in Wales and their use by outside regions, has been controversial for several years. Those domestic consumers who are unable or unwilling to pay the high water charges and the further increases likely next year, will not give up easily. They feel strongly about the way in which Welsh resources are exploited. I am sure that the Government are only creating opposition and increasing the determination of consumers in Wales to obtain justice.
      Clearly, the Government will not accept the amendment. I can tell that by the expression on the Minister's face. However, if he rejects it, I hope that he will put forward cogent arguments to the Welsh electorate, telling us why we should continue to suffer such high charges.
      Mr. WigleyThe cogent argument, imposed on the Minister by the Secretary of State, and which he has been forced to use, is that there are 11 marginal seats in the area of the Severn-Trent authority. In an election year, that dominates the Government's thinking.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Thomas: I am sure that my hon. Friend is, in this case, as in many other cases—although perhaps not always—right. He has pointed out that political issues affect the Government's decisions. I do not want to anticipate what may emerge later this week, but Governments are sensitive on such matters whether they concern keeping open railway lines in marginal Welsh constituencies, or water supplies. Therefore, a marginally higher charge to the consumers of water in regions that take advantage of Welsh resources would be sufficient to persuade the Government not to equalise or to attempt to provide some recompense. That is another example of the way in which the Government treat Wales. They have disregarded Welsh opinion in their economic and social policies and are now doing so in their environmental and natural resources policies.
      That is not surprising because the Government have no mandate in Wales and they are clearly prepared to sell the needs of Wales down the river, as it were. In this case it is down a river regulated by reservoirs built in Wales, the advantages of which accrue to consumers outside Wales.

      277
      We have recently seen another graphic instance of the way in which differential water charges operate in a border village between Clwyd and Cheshire. I congratulate those people who found themselves back in the area of the Cheshire water undertaking, and who therefore had cheaper water rates. However, I remind them that one day they will be back in Wales and we hope that that will be at a time when water rates between the north-west, Chester, and Wales are equalised so that they will not have to pay more.
      I press the Minister to give some rational response and to set out what options he thinks the Welsh water authority can realistically take in its negotiations with the Severn/Trent and the North-West water authorities to try to obtain a more equitable level of charges and to ensure that the major consumers of Welsh water outside Wales make some recompense to lower the charges to non-metered water consumers in Wales.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) will join my hon. Friends in voting for the amendment. It is important that we should show the Welsh people that there are strongly held views on this and that the Government are deliberately resisting an attempt to bring equality to Welsh domestic water consumers.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) has said about this amendment. This is a deplorable Bill. We have come to it after the reorganisation in the Water Act 1973 by a Conservative Government, who I think it is now agreed did not do a good job on that occasion. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend said that it will be a high priority for the next Labour Government to amend the damage that the Bill will inflict on the British water industry. It is significant that a Water Act was rushed through the House in 1973, prior to the 1974 election, and now we shall have the 1983 Bill which might well lead to an election in 1983 or 1984.
      The amendment relates to clause 8, which is one of the worst features of the Bill for Wales. The people of Wales would have wished the Government to address themselves to the injustice in the differentiation between the water charges in different parts of the United Kingdom. There is no justification for it. We are given no justification by the Government for those differences.
      Under the Bill the regions are allowed to have a system of equalisation. Within the Welsh water authority the people in the urban areas pay towards the cost of distributing water to the country areas. However, because of the geology and demography of Wales there is an added cost in the distribution of water compared with, for example, the city of Birmingham, which is a comparatively small area where distribution costs are not great. Therefore, it is possible for the cost of distributions in one part of the United Kingdom to be far less than those in another part.
      Britain does not have a system in which it costs more to post a letter in the country than from one part of London to another. The Government do not seem to realise the injustice of people being compelled to pay more for their water because they live in a certain part of the United Kingdom. Matters have been made worse. When the water industry was closely linked to local authorities, and people paid one rate that covered the local authority rate and the water rate, if they were in financial difficulties or had small means, that was taken into account, and they had a
      278
      rebate that covered both water and local authority services. The present rating system is not just. The payment for services according to the size of one's property is something that a future Government will have to examine.
      There is injustice in the present system under which the local authority and water rates have been separated. Elderly people who live in large properties are able to obtain a rate rebate from the local authority if their means are small. But they have no water rate rebate. It is not how much water is consumed in the house that determines the water rate; it is determined by the size of the house. One could have two houses of equal size, in one of which an elderly person of small means has to pay the same rate as the family next door with seven or eight earners.
      The injustice is that this system varies between one part of the country and another. Wales has a large rainfall, and supplies water not only to Wales but over the border, but water is cheaper over the border. The Leader of the House is present. His is an area that benefits from this system. Why is it allowed? How can one justify the fact that the water that comes from Wales can be obtained by his constituents at far less cost than it can be by the people of Wales?
      I do not agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) about taking the law into one's own hands. That is not the answer. The answer is in the ballot box, which will be available in the not-too-distant future. People must exercise their right to vote. If the Government will not address themselves to the serious problems of the water rates, as they are not doing in the Bill, we have to seek democratic ways to bring about democratic changes.
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that we shall soon have the ballot box as a means of expressing our opinion. If the Labour Party is elected at that election, can he give a pledge that it will achieve what the previous Labour Government did not achieve—equalisation of water charges?
      Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has given certain commitments.
      I should go further than equalisation. Water is an essential service. We did not have a local rate for the Falkland Islands expedition. The money came from taxation.
      Increasingly there should be an Exchequer contribution to the water industry. It is increasingly through taxation that we should pay for our water service rather than by the iniquitous method of people paying according to the size of accommodation in which they live. It is scandalous that a family in a house where an additional room has been built should have to pay higher water rates. Instead of perpetuating the situation, the Government should accept this modest amendment. The Opposition tried in Committee to bring about more fundamental change.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman making a bid for the votes of the landlords in my constituency? I am sure that Lord Longford would be delighted to hear that he will be required to pay the same water charges as the tenant of a modest semi-detached council house.
      Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me suggest that payment should be based on taxation. It would be payment from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.
      Mr. Wigley: A wealth tax, not a Welsh tax.
      Mr. Evans: That is right. There should be a tax on wealth rather than a tax on the Welsh. This is a tax on the people of Wales. They have to pay more for water that comes from their area than people in other areas. I have no wish to quarrel with the people of Birmingham. Many Welsh people living in Birmingham moved there at the time of the last depression. Such a move cannot be made now because the depression even affects Birmingham. It is necessary to deal with the matter through the Exchequer. I hope that the next Labour Government will give it priority.
      Unfortunately, the 1973 Act was a shambles. However, the view was taken that, following reorganisation, it would be impossible then to dig up the roots. That explains why there has been delay. The mistakes of the previous Conservative Government in local government, the Health Service and the water industry are known. Now that they have come back to their own problems, their answers are worse than the previous ones. Their solutions are worse than the problems themselves.
      We should move to greater equalisation. Because of the recession, the Welsh water industry has lost £6 million. The sum of £3 million has been taken by the Government. It is no good Ministers saying that the Water Charges Equalisation Act did not achieve much. It might not have achieved as much as it should have done, but it has proved better than what is now happening.
      I hope that the Government will agree to a concession to deal with an issue that is not a minority problem in Wales. It concerns the vast majority of people. There is deep anxiety in Wales which cuts across party political boundaries. People of all political persuasions cannot understand the injustice that has been imposed.
      Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan): The hon. Gentleman said that he did not agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr Thomas) about equalisation charges. He said that he would go a little further. He suggested that he would go for greater equalisation. Will he clarify what he means by "greater equalisation"?
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Evans: Instead of equalising the existing rate between different regions in Wales and the rest of England, we should relate it to the tax that people pay. There is no boundary. One pays tax according to one's income. The Government should pay a greater contribution from their revenue. That form of equalisation would make a better and more just system than comparing the water rates paid in, for instance, the Severn/Trent area or the Thames area with other areas. We need to tackle the problem in a more fundamental way.
      Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the amount of money that is paid in the present form of water rates should be paid in local income tax, according to a person's income tax.
      Mr. Evans: Nationally.
      Mr. Ogden: Yes. But will he follow it through? It would be strange if the money now paid in water rates were paid as an income tax, a poll tax, but the rates themselves remained on the old basis of rateable value. Would that not be a contradiction?
      Mr. Evans: As I said earlier, we should look at the iniquitous rate system. The water rate and the local authority rate, which originally were one rate, have now
      280
      been separated. The system was unjust before, but now it is even more unjust. There should be a check on local authority spending. We have to think again about the formula whereby the Exchequer makes a certain contribution and the local authority makes a contribution. People talk about abolishing local authority rates, but it is not easy.
      The only argument for water rates is that if people pay for water it inhibits people from wasting it. That is not so. People have water on a meter. Whether or not they pay a water rate does not conserve water, unlike electricity, gas, or other forms of energy, where consumers pay a price to equate supply and demand, and make sure that they do not waste it. People can waste water and pay lower water rates than people who do not waste water. So that argument falls by the wayside.
      Last winter people were deprived of water and could not use the toilets. That makes one realise how important water is. In my opinion, it should be made free, and if it were free, we should have to move away from the existing water rate system.
      We must look at the matter in a more fundamental manner. Instead of doing that, the Government have made a fundamental mistake in removing the compensation that was introduced in an attempt to deal with the injustice between Wales and the other regions of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: It is abundantly clear that there is no lack of variety of solutions to equalisation on the Opposition Benches. We have had a tremendous variety of solutions and clearly there is no unanimity on the Opposition Benches about which of the different solutions is most applicable. The pledge of the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) that a future Labour Government will equalise does not sound convincing, especially if the amendment is the best attempt that the Opposition can make to date at achieving equalisation. It certainly represents an attempt at introducing back-door equalisation.
      Clause 8 is intended to repeal the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977. The scheme established by that Act was clearly the best scheme that the Labour Administration could devise. However, we must not forget that it was thoroughly unsatisfactory. In the third year of its operation it had the effect of moving the average bills of unmeasured consumers 42 per cent. further away from the national average.
      Equalisation, by its very nature, must penalise some areas, and it could certainly inhibit efficiency and distort investment decisions. We do not believe that the answer lies in central Government setting the level of charges for non-metered water supply. A standard national price implies subsidy of some areas by others. Those who advocate subsidy must decide where it will end. Is it to end with water charges or will it extend to general rates?
      The Government believe that the right solution—it is in the Bill—is for the Welsh water authority and the regional water authorities to keep their charges under control through greater efficiency. It has been alleged that we have done nothing, but we have changed the structure and organisation of the Welsh water authority to achieve the greater efficiency that we believe is the best means to reduce water rates and to keep the level of rates as low as we can.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: What is the effect on individual domestic consumers of the alleged efficiency that the hon. Gentleman has established and what contribution has it made to reducing water charges and introducing greater equality between English regions and Wales?
      Mr. Roberts: The new authority came into existence as recently as 1 April 1982. It has barely had an opportunity to prove its mettle. We expect considerable progress to be made by the new business-like and compact authority that we have installed in Brecon. We expect rather greater financial gains by the new authority than would have been achieved had my right hon. Friend determined in favour of the Welsh water authority and against the Severn Trent and North-West water authorities.
      We have made it clear during our debates that had my right hon. Friends decided in favour of the Welsh water authority and granted its claim in full against the other authorities, the effect would have been a reduction of £1 in the average Welsh domestic bill this year of £79.
      I say to the hon. Members for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that of course water is an emotional issue in Wales, but no one has done more than they have to stir up emotions and to encourage Welsh people not to pay their water bills. That means that an additional cost falls on those who pay their bills because money has to be borrowed by the Welsh water authority and the interest on that has to be paid by the consumers.
      Let us put the matter into perspective. We acknowledge that water is an emotive issue in Wales. It is the most outworn cliché in our political vocabulary, but the fact is that we are not top of the league with regard to the average domestic bill. Two out of the 10 water authorities have higher average charges then we have. There are higher average charges in Anglia and the south-west region in the current year.
      Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that if he and his colleagues had fought and won the battle to get the £4 million for Wales, albeit only £4 million, the ratepayers in Wales would have had a reduction this year as opposed to the increase that he says is happening because of the campaign that is being waged, minimal though that increase may be? Why did the Minister's Department take 15 months to reach the decision? When he said last year that the Government were willing to move away from the no-profit, no-loss conception, why does he now adhere to it? Will he admit that his Department has suffered defeat at the hands of the Department of the Environment?
      Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has not studied the decision and the way in which the decision was arrived at by my right hon. Friends. He will be aware that that was the first determination of its kind. He will be aware that a procedure had to be devised. He will be aware that my right hon. Friends could decide only upon the submission made to them by the Welsh water authority, as commented upon by the other two authorities. He should also be aware that an application was made by the new Welsh authority that came into operation last April to change and add to the submission that was made by its predecessor. That is why it took a certain amount of time to reach the decision.
      I have stressed that my right hon. Friends could come to a decision only on the submission that was made to them. Therefore, there is no sense in which my right hon. Friends were defeated. I have said that the no-profit, no-loss principle has been operated by successive
      282
      Governments in the past, including this Government. It is a clear principle, upon which my right hon. Friends decided to base their determination.
      The prime purpose of the Bill is to allow water authorities to exercise better control over the management of their activities. That point has not been fully appreciated, even now, on Report.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister tell the House and the people of Wales whether it is his view that people living in Wales should pay higher rates than people living in Birmingham and London?
      12 midnight
      Mr. Roberts: It is clear that in practice the rates vary in different parts of the country. It is in the essence of the Bill to allow variable rates. I have explained that Wales is third from the top of the league. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I am happy with that position, I have made it clear that we were the first to go in for structural reorganisation to promote efficiency in the Welsh water authority. The hon. Gentleman should not forget that the authority has considerable business, with a revenue income of well over £150 million per year. We believe that the authority can be run more efficiently in the future, that savings can be achieved and that that is the way to keep charges to consumers down.
      Mr. Wigley rose—
      Mr. Roberts: As I have said before, no one has come up with a scheme for the equalisation of water charges that does not in some way inhibit good cost control. The right hon. Member for Rhondda is delightfully vague in his amendment about what is "reasonably comparable". The amendment would completely nullify clause 8 and I must ask the House to reject it.
      Mr. Alec Jones: I have never heard such a nonsensical and ridiculous reply. In view of the stupid nature of the Minister's reply, I am so full of contempt that I shall not even bother to vote on the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
      Mr. Alec Jones: Yes.
      Mr. Wigley: No.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was asking the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) whether he wished to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do we not have the right to vote on the motion before the House? We wish to vote in favour of the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I do not have the agreement of the House, I shall have to put the question on the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 160.

      Division No. 44]

      [12 midnight

      AYES

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Howells, Geraint

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ogden, Eric

      Cryer, Bob

      Parry, Robert

      Dixon, Donald

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Hardy, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Home Robertson, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      283

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mr. D. E. Thomas and

      Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Ancram, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Aspinwall, Jack

      King, Rt Hon Tom

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

      Lamont, Norman

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Lang, Ian

      Banks, Robert

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Loveridge, John

      Best, Keith

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      MacGregor, John

      Blackburn, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Blaker, Peter

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Mates, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Mather, Carol

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Bright, Graham

      Mellor, David

      Brinton, Tim

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Moate, Roger

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Murphy, Christopher

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Myles, David

      Butcher, John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Neubert, Michael

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Osborn, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cope, John

      Pawsey, James

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Pollock, Alexander

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Renton, Tim

      Durant, Tony

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Rossi, Hugh

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fox, Marcus

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Shersby, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Silvester, Fred

      Gow, Ian

      Smith, Sir Dudley

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Greenway, Harry

      Speller, Tony

      Grieve, Percy

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

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

      Squire, Robin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Stainton, Keith

      Grist, Ian

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Stanley, John

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Stevens, Martin

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Stokes, John

      Heddle, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Henderson, Barry

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Thompson, Donald

      Hooson, Tom

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Trippier, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Viggers, Peter

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Waddington, David

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Jessel, Toby

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Waller, Gary

      284

      Ward, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Watson, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Wheeler, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Mr. John Major.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: After that startling Division result, which clearly showed that the policy of the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) does not command the full support of the Opposition, I hope that we can deal quickly with the next amendments.

    Clause 10

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 7, line 32, after '1973,', insert
      '"statutory water company" has the same meaning as in the principal Act,'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

    Clause 11

      SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT, ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 18, in page 8, line 1, leave out
      'This subsection and subsection (5) below and'.
      No. 19, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
      '(aa) sections 9 and 10;
      (ab) this section, except subsections (2) and (3);'.
      No. 20, in page 8, line 5, after 'Schedule 3', insert
      'and subsection (2) of this section so far as relating to that paragraph'.
      No. 21, in page 8, line 8, after '1982', insert
      'and subsection (3) of this section so far as relating to that revocation'.
      No. 22, in page 8, line 21, after '3', insert
      '(1) and (3) to (5)'.
      No. 23, in page 8, leave out lines 24 to 34 and insert
      'extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland and any repeal by Schedule 4 to this Act of an enactment which extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland has the same extent as that enactment, but otherwise this Act extends to England and Wales only.'—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

    Schedule 2

      PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE DISSOLUTION OF NATIONAL WATER COUNCIL AND WATER SPACE AMENITY COMMISSION
      Amendments made: No. 24, in page 13, leave out lines 16 to 18.
      No. 25, in page 15, line 26, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as possible after determining the amount of any allowances payable under subparagraph (3) above, lay a statement of his determination before each House of Parliament.'. — [Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      12.15 am
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 16, line 5, at end insert—

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        'Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c.51)
        3A.—(1) In section 28 of the Salmon and Freshwater

        285
        Fisheries Act 1975 (general powers and duties of water authorities in relation to fisheries) after subsection (2) there is inserted the following subsection—
        "(2A) A water authority may pay to any member of an advisory committee established by it in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above such allowances as may be determined by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury.".
        (2) In section 41 of that Act (interpretation) after subsection (2) there is inserted the following subsection—
        "(2A) In section 28(2A) above, the reference to the Minister shall be construed in relation to the Welsh Water Authority, as a reference to the Secretary of State.".'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 28.
        Mr. Roberts: This amendment preserves a power for water authorities to pay allowances to members of their fishery advisory committees and their land drainage committees. At present, the power to pay allowances to members of water authorities' committees derives from section 177(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972. That section will be repealed by this Bill because, in future, Ministers will have the power under paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to determine the pay and allowances that water authorities make to their members. However, we must preserve the power to pay allowances to members of the statutory fishery advisory committees and land drainage committees, and that is the purpose of the amendments.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: Amendment No. 26 enables water authorities to pay members of advisory committees appointed under section 28(1)(b) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That section places a duty on water authorities
        "to establish advisory committees of persons who appear to them to be interested in any such fisheries in that area and consult them as to the manner in which the authority are to discharge their duty under paragraph (a) above."
        As the Under-Secretary of State said, at present payments are made under local government legislation. But who is paying? The ratepayers, in the environmental service charges paid to the water authorities, are now paying those bills. I question whether ratepayers, through water rate services charges, should be held responsible for the payments. They are funding a service to support the stretches of water that contain salmon that, in my county, are mainly owned by a select group. Riparian owners of salmon stretches do very well under the current arrangements. The only way to measure how well they do is either to inspect their revenue returns, which we cannot do, or to examine the water authority returns that they are required to submit under schedule 3 of the 1975 Act. The schedule states:
        "Requiring persons fishing for salmon, trout or freshwater fish to send to the water authority returns, in such form, giving such particulars and at such times as may be specified in the bye laws, of any such fish which they have taken, or a statement that they have taken no such fish."
        However, those returns can often be falsified. I have evidence from my constituency of alleged inaccuracies in returns. I choose my words carefully. Those allegations are supported by a sworn affidavit, which is in my possession. Falsification or inaccuracy in returns means that the revenue returns to the Inland Revenue may also be inaccurate. Falsification or inaccuracy mean that water authorities cannot assess accurately the possibility for increased riparian revenues. Furthermore, they cannot possibly assess the increased hatchery costs that they must
        286
        pay, which equally, although they are no part of this amendment, should not fall entirely to the environmental service charges paid to water authorities.
        I recently wrote to the North-West water authority about the charges that we are discussing in this amendment, in so far as they are charges that water authorities will have to pay out of the environmental service charges that they levy on all ratepayers. In the reply I received from the North-West water authority, it thanked me for my letter about charges paid to the authority by riparian owners. It added:
        "Fishing rights are not subject to water supply and sewerage charges. However, because they have a rateable value, their rateable occupiers must pay the environmental services charge to the Authority.
        This annual charge is small (currently 0·5p per £ of rateable value) and as we do not issue bills for less than £1 only 33 bills totalling £69·16p were issued this year in respect of fishing rights on rivers in our Northern Division. A further 172 bills for under £1 and totalling £65·59p were not sent. Some £0·4 million of the total estimated expenditure of £1·4 on fisheries this year (including £0·5 for enforcement and protection) will be met from charges. The balance is made up from the environmental services charge which also funds water quality, pollution prevention and recreation and amenity services.
        Most of the income from fisheries charges is obtained from licence fees. Other sources, i.e. rents, sales of fish and sales of fishing guides total only £13,000 per annum."
        The letter then goes on to say that the authority cannot apportion licence income to individual rivers.
        A substantial deficit is being picked up by the public purse. This amendment seeks further to increase that deficit. I think it is of importance to the House that we consider that matter. If we consider the real figures as they affect West Cumbria we find that they include to some extent—allowing for the fact that current local government legislation already provides for some payment and this is simply a switch from one legislative arrangement to another—the current charges to the water authority in my constituency, are now £223,165 for the year 1982ߝ1983.
        The latest figure for revenue from fishermen and from riparian owners in that same area was for the year 1981. It was only £14,390, including rod licences and fixed engine licence payments to the water authority. Expenditure exceeds receipts by 15 times, and yet this Government are still seeking to insert in the form of this amendment what some may say is an additional charge on the water authority.
        My case is simple. With that level of deficit, and with that type of multiplier in terms of costs to the water authorities arising from receipts from the riparian owners and other sources of moneys, the Government should increasingly ensure that riparian owners pay a far greater share of the costs of water authorities. I would have thought that such a suggestion would have appealed to the Government, in as much as it would provide for a reduction in public expenditure and a reduction in the environmental service charges paid by constituents throughout the North-West region.
        However, in looking at this matter, the Government have a duty to ensure that the returns made to the North-West water authority by riparian rights owners within that area are accurate.
        Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman clearly understands that the situation varies between different water authority regions. He has referred specifically to the north-western area. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be looking into his allegation.

        287
        I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this amendment does not impose any additional charge. It simply makes it clear that the determination of allowances is to be by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of English water authorities and the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of the Welsh water authority.
        I can also add that in determining licence fees the costs involved with fisheries and so on are taken into account.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 27, in page 16, line 8 after 'regional', insert 'and'.
        No. 28, in page 16, line 27 at end insert—
        '(2A) A water authority may pay to any person who, not being a member of the authority, is a member of their regional land drainage committee or of one of their local land drainage committees such allowances as may be determined by the appropriate Minister with the consent of the Treasury.'.
        No. 29, in page 17, line 42, at end insert—
        '8. The amendment of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 made by section 1(2) of this Act shall not affect the operation of that Act in relation to any complaint entertained by a Local Commissioner before the commencement of section 1(2).'.
        No. 30, in page 17, line 42, at end insert—
        '9. In any case where—

        (a) the Treasury have given a guarantee under paragraph 36(1) of Schedule 3 to the principal Act in respect of any sum borrowed by the Council; and

        (b) any liability of the Council relating to repayment of the principal of, or payment of interest on, the sum so borrowed (or any part of that sum) has become a liability of one or more water authorities whether by virtue of an order under section 3(4) of this Act or otherwise;

        paragraph 36(1) of Schedule 3 shall have effect as if it empowered the Treasury to give a new guarantee in respect of that liability.'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

      Schedule 4

        REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
        Amendments made: No. 31, in page 18, line 5, at end insert—

        '1960 c.67.

        The Public bodies In the Schedule, para-(Admission to Meetings) graph 1(c).' Act 1960.

        No. 32, in page 18, line 17, column 3, at end insert—
        'Space'.
        No. 34, in page 19, leave out lines 21 to 23.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

      Title
      Amendments made: No. 35, in line 8, leave out 'repeal section 25(1)(d) of' and insert 'amend Schedule 5 to'.
      No. 36, in line 9, at end insert Nto repeal'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      12.28 am
      Mr. Denis Howell: Although other hon. Members may wish to intervene, it may expedite our proceedings if I speak now before the Minister. That may get us home a little earlier than would otherwise be the case. I must register our disappointment and concern over a number of areas, but I assure the House that I shall do so as expeditiously as possible.
      It is no accident that in committee we spent 14 hours on clause 1. We have been unable to say anything about
      288
      clause 1 on Report for the very good reason that Mr. Speaker did not select the brilliant amendment drafted by the Opposition, which sought to put on the statute book a substitute for the National Water Council.
      That is a great pity. We totally opposed the decision to kill off the National Water Council. It was an ill-conceived decision, but I shall not bore the House by repeating the 14 hours of argument now.
      What obviously emerges at the end of this long examination is that important national decisionsstill have to be taken within the water industry. We are in the ludicrous position that the Government propose to abolish the statutory National Water Council and at the same time to establish a national association of water authority chairmen which will have to do all the things which the National Water Council was charged with doing.
      There is no escape from the fact that a national water strategy is needed, but the Bill does not say how it is to be achieved. One can only assume that it is to be done within the Department, so giving more and more centralised power to Ministers who will be taking decisions about subjects which we will not be advised upon and will have little opportunity to comment on.
      There must be a national water strategy. It would have been much better if that could have been done by the Government accepting our amendment, although I admit that, as it was not selected for debate, it would have been a little difficult. However, Parliament has to be taken as a whole, like many other things, which means, thank goodness, that there is another place where the Government and other people may return to these issues.
      The Under-Secretary of State referred to an association of water authority chairmen. In our new clause 2, which we would have preferred, we called it an association of water authorities. It means the same thing—a national water council by another name. Although the Government have not written this into the Bill they have, by providing for an association of water authorities, conceded the case that we have been making. All right. Perhaps they wanted it to have more of a consultative and advisory role than the old statutory National Water Council. I hope the Government, even at this late stage, will decide that provision for that authority should be put into the Bill, outlining some of the functions with which it should deal, such as the provision of advice to the Secretary of State on matters of national planning of water resources and a national strategy for water disposal and waterways. We lament the demise of the National Water Council.
      With that comes the most fundamental objection to the Bill, which again we have not been able to deal with at all today, apart from a cursory reference by the Under-Secretary of State—the decision to remove from all positions of influence any elected local government representative. This is the first time it has happened since the inception of the water industry. It is very serious. As I have already conceded, no doubt the Secretary of State will show enough wisdom to ensure that there are on the water authorities people experienced in local government, but that is totally different from killing the concept of direct election and nomination of local authority interests. Who would have thought that it would be a Conservative Government who would strike this blow at the heart of local government democracy? Had the proposal come from a Labour Government or a Government of another complexion, the sounds of protest would have been reaching up to heaven.
      Mr. Spearing: Eastern Europe.
      Mr. Howell: Absolutely. As I said when these proposals were first brought forward, nothing so despotic in its intention can be found this side of the iron curtain. These proposals are coming from a Conservative Government.
      Some of us, especially those of us with experience in local government, must stand up and say that this is a sad day for local government democracy and accountability. As the Government know, all the local authority associations, when pressed, have been forced to say that this is a lamentable day for local government and that the Government have behaved disgracefully.
      I repeat that every one of our major water undertakings stemmed from local government. They were all provided by local government. Similarly, the great schemes for drainage and water disposal were provided by local government. They were provided by ratepayers throughout the country. It is a shocking state of affairs when local government is prevented from making any direct nominations, or from holding membership of such bodies.
      That point must be considered alongside the other Government proposals that we regard with great suspicion and sadness. There is to be no local government membership, no ombudsman, no press representation at water authority meetings, no national joint industrial council and no national wage negotiations. We still do not know what will happen in that important area. There is no statutory provision for the representatives of sport and recreation. The abolition of the items on that shortlist means that considerable rights and safeguards are being removed from the people. It is our duty to bring that to the attention of the House.
      There is to be no sensible system of equalisation or fair charging between one region and another. We should have preferred to debate amendment No. 16 rather than the amendment upon which minority interests have just forced a vote at a very late hour. It would have been much better if the representatives of those interests had been in Committee to vote with us on the subject. However, they chose not to be present and not to vote. Nevertheless, we must return to this issue. The politics of the situation will not allow any Government to leave it as it is.
      Therefore, in the absence of the strident voices of any representatives of the Liberal and Welsh nationalist Benches, I shall make it clear that we give a firm commitment—along the lines of amendment No. 16—to achieve fairness of charges by equalisation mark 2, or some other means. That is the inescapable commitment that I must give on behalf of the Labour party. As I have said, there is no provision for wage negotiations. It is incredible that, despite their seriousness, the Government are leaving a decision about whether to have any national joint industrial negotiations to the authorities.
      I shall not talk about the wage dispute now, but I am sorry that the Minister did not take the opportunity to face up to the question of how, when the chairmen have decided how they will negotiate with the unions, to prevent any majority decision in favour of national negotiation from being undermined by allowing one or two authorities to go it alone and to opt out of any system. I hope that the Minister will give the matter further thought before the Bill returns from the other place. That is the point that we have tried to make.
      290
      Most regional water authorities think that there should be some national joint industrial negotiations. They are right to do so, but there is a minority who think the opposite. If my information is accurate, any such system must apply to the 10 water authorities and the Welsh water authority. It would be catastrophic if that was not so. Therefore, I hope that that is made clear. I should like it to be written into the Bill. I hope that if the chairmen have reached their conclusions before the Bill goes to or returns from another place the Government will take the opportunity to do so. I assure them that the writing in of a provision for national joint industrial negotiations will go a long way to remove many of the misconceptions and some of the bitterness that exist at present.
      There is nothing in the Bill about the important question who will finance research in the industry. The water industry has had a good research record. One knows the different views that exist in the industry. Some of the regional water authorities do not see why they should contribute to a national research programme, because they think that they are big enough to do their own. However, it must be extremely wasteful to have 10 separate research programmes without any co-ordination or central direction. That again is a cause of considerable anxiety to us.
      For all those reasons, we find the Bill disappointing and inadequate. Obviously we must accept what we have been able to achieve in the Bill. In Committee we were co-operative despite the clear divisions of principle between the two sides. We achieved some things and tried to improve some of the provisions. Obviously the country must have some machinery for providing for the industry's future. Therefore, this is not the time to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, although we opposed it in principle on Second Reading. We can only hope that in another place it is even further improved and that when it returns to the House some of our points will, on reflection, be conceded. In that belief I shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.
      12.42 am
      Mr. Durant: I wish to intervene for only a moment, first to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his co-operation and help on the Bill, and, secondly, to ask him whether an amendment will be tabled in another place on the sewerage arrangements for local authorities. The local authorities are anxious about this. We had a debate on it in Committee. A new clause was tabled, but naturally it was not selected because of the rules of the House. However, I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that there will be an adequate amendment tabled in another place to deal with this important question of sewerage arrangements for local authorities.
      12.44 am
      Mr. Spearing: I agree with all that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said about the Bill, but he was too kind. It is a destructive Bill. It takes away rather than builds up, and it destroys relationships and organisms which after 10 years are beginning to settle down and could have been improved by a different Bill.
      It has been said recently that the House is a charade. I do not agree with that. However, as I knew something about water before I came to the House, I can well see why

      291
      some people outside sometimes take that view of proceedings here on matters about which they have knowledge.
      Conservative Members are debating an arcane subject late at night, and they want to go home, but they are being kept up. I point out to them that the Bill will have the same effect as the Acts that introduced health reorganisation and local government reorganisation. Like those Acts, this one is not fitted to the needs of the nation, the consumers or good government. We have this bad Bill because we have a bad Government, and—I have to say this, although the Minister is here—bad judgement by Ministers when they were looking for a solution to the problem of how to improve what we have.
      When the Secretary of State, as a junior Minister, made a statement some months ago about what the government intended, he knows that I very nearly lost my temper with him. I intervened from a sedentary position, with some effect, as he will see if he reads Hansard. The proceedings today show just how bad a Government can be when they are dealing with matters that need improving, but they take the wrong turning.
      When I came to the House, London's pure water was the responsibility of the Metropolitan water board, and the drainage was dealt with by the GLC board of works, an ex-LCC department. It was a large organisation by any standards. We did not wish it to be merged with the Thames water authority, and I moved an amendment, although not against the water cycle, which we all wanted to be brought into the water organisation. The amendment was for a number of small regional authorities coordinated nationally to provide a comprehensive system of water co-operation and government.
      The Government of the day—some present hon. Members were here at that time—attempted to put water into the straitjacket of something that they understood to be a public utility. The original Bill as conceived by the then Secretary of State aimed to treat water like electricity and gas. Perhaps the Ministers had played "Monopoly" too much when they were young and thought that they were all the same. They are not.
      Electricity and gas may be natural phenomena, but they are channelled, stored, supplied and measured by man. Water is not like that. It is around us all the time. It is in the streets, on the roofs, on the roads, in the gardens, on agricultural land, on the mountains, on the moorlands, on the seas and in the estuaries. It is a natural phenomenon that would exist if we were not here. Yet the Government are putting it on a par with the other public utilities. Water impregnates the environment and the soil.
      One cannot run an organisation dealing with this essential substance on the basis of a Whitehall bureaucracy. However, that is what the Bill is trying to do. I am not suggesting that the original water authorities were ideal: there was much wrong that should have been improved. They were probably too large and perhaps too remote. That could have been dealt with in other ways. There is certainly a need for a national co-ordinating mechanism.
      I criticised the National Water Council when it started because I thought that it would be too weak. It has done a reasonably good job, but the Secretary of State now wants to destroy it. However, to do so, the Government are having to get together an association to fulfil those very
      292
      important national functions that even the Government admit have to be carried out. We are taking away those functions by statute and having to create something else in their place. That is not a very sensible thing to do. I do not know the Government's objectives. They have never been explained in terms that make sense to anyone who knows anything about the water industry.
      I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister replied to my proposal in the opening debate. He said that the job of the Water Space Amenity Commission had largely been done. Its pioneering work may have been done, but continuation of its executive work remains. The putative association of water authorities will certainly set up a replacement for the Water Space Amenity Commission, although not one with statutory responsibilities and powers. There is nothing in public life between hon. Members and the Secretary of State and every tap, cistern and pipe in every house in the country. It may be true that hon. Members cannot ask direct questions about day-to-day management, just as we cannot ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the 5.25 was late. Years ago, when the British Railways Board was first established, such questions could be asked.
      Under the Bill, hon. Members will not be able to ask the Minister about the detailed conduct of any of the boards that he has appointed. That will be part of day-to-day administration. I make no complaint about the practice of the House under which hon. Members cannot ask such questions. If, however, it is argued that these matters are too detailed to be dealt with here, there should be machinery for them to be dealt with elsewhere. All that the Bill contains is the apology for consumer councils contained in clause 7, which is not really concerned with consumer councils at all. They exist within the clause but the obligations are concerned with reporting arrangements. The councils are not even set out in constitutional form. Everything will depend upon the guidelines about which the Minister has spoken.
      The Government will be reneging on their responsibilities if they fail to state in statutory form how the consumer councils should work. Otherwise, there is nothing between every tap, cistern and lavatory and this House and the Secretary of State. It is certainly not desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should be burdened with those responsibilities.
      The Bill creates further bureaucracy without accountability. It gives enormous powers of patronage to the Secretary of State. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not exercise them in the manner that the Secretary of State for Social Services appears to be exercising such powers in respect of health boards. However, if one Secretary of State can behave in this manner in health matters, another Secretary of State can do the same in respect of water.
      There have been complaints by the Minister and Conservative Members that councils have not been too careful about their appointments to regional water authorities. It has been a place where old horses go out to grass or where people can be sent to Coventry. This has not been stated in so many words, but it has been the implication. What will the Secretary of State do? How will even the best Secretary of State be able to choose between the merits of the nominees to be appointed to regional hospital boards? He will be even more reliant on ladies and gentlemen to whom, by custom, we cannot refer in this place even if some of them are present.

      293
      The Government, who have views about Whitehall and the Civil Service, are adding to a machine that they criticise, not always properly. It is another feature of the Bill that is destructive and regressive in terms of good public administration. Almost every feature of the Bill is backward and is dismantling what has been started. It should never have been brought to the House. It should not be passed.
      12.55 am
      Mr. Neil Thorne: My hon. Friend will remember that in Committee I expressed concern about the powers to be vested in the water authorities to assist in winning overseas business, and I said that the Association of Consulting Engineers had expressed grave concern about possible unfair competition by water authorities. My right hon. Friend gave certain assurances, and concluded his remarks by observing:
      "Why the involvement of the public sector is so important is that we can have this co-operative approach of enabling overseas customers to visit water authorities and water companies and actually see British plant operating and to see something of the success of their work".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 December 1982; c. 205.]
      That was important, but it appears that the rules to be laid down for this type of operation will be by the issue of guidelines. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether he has made any further progress in preparing those guidelines, and whether they will have the force of law? If not, presumably they could be breached at any time, and therefore would not provide safeguards likely to last as long as the Bill, when it becomes law. That would be less than satisfactory.
      The consultation document on the matter published in June 1981 said:
      "It is not intended that the export activities of the bodies should extend to competition in the fields of design, engineering construction or supply of plant which is the province of the private sector. The exercise of export powers by the bodies would be subject to the written consent of the Secretary of State who would be able to impose conditions".
      It is clear from this that it is the Government's intention not to allow unfair competition at the expense of the water ratepayers. If my hon. Friend acknowledges the very real concern that was expressed in Committee and accepted by my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he please be more specific about what he has in mind to allay that fear?
      12.56 am
      Mr. Ogden: At 12.56, I am well aware of the lateness of the hour and the desire of most hon. Members to be in another place—and not necessarily the place at the red end of the Corridor. I am also aware that on 19 January, the day after the publication of the Franks report, there is little general interest in our affairs from the press, which earlier was notable for its absence. I believe that it was at a party elsewhere in the building—whether to celebrate the Prime Minister's acquittal, I do not know. However, the results of the Government's reorganisation of the water industry may have a much greater effect on the lives of my constituents than the Franks report that is getting all the attention today.
      I want to put one or two questions to the Minister, and one or two to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). The right hon. Gentleman did a rollcall a short time ago. It amounted to about half a dozen Members on the Opposition Benches—now three
      294
      enthusiasts, all men—and half a dozen enthusiasts on the Conservative Benches, and possibly 154 pressed men and women to maintain the Government's majority. The right hon. Gentleman said that he intended to support Third Reading. Perhaps he would have been more accurate if he had said that he would not oppose Third Reading.
      Mr. Denis Howell: That is exactly the position.
      Mr. Ogden: As a former colleague, I just wanted to clarify that. The fact that there is no formal Note against Third Reading does not mean that we approve the Bill, as cosmetically amended. We accept the reality of the situation that there are 160 votes on the Government side.
      Some changes have been made. As I said, they are essentially cosmetic. The balance that we had on Second Reading between a service authority and a service industry, between an efficient authority and an accountable authority, has gone too far. We have virtually excluded the formal interest of the press, local authorities and the ombudsman, and so the accountability of the water authorities comes direct to this place. I shall be interested to read the Minister's replies about what questions we can ask and what we cannot.
      If we are formally to exclude local authorities, the press and the ombudsman, and if this is to be the only place in which questions can be asked, a responsibility is placed on hon. Members to organise their affairs in their parliamentary activities within the districts and the regions. The relationship of hon. Members to the water authorities in their areas must be much closer and perhaps much more formal than hitherto. In the past we could leave it to local authority members, the ombudsman and the press to be the public's watchdogs, but it will be necessary now to achieve a more formal relationship. I shall be asking for that in the North-West and no doubt the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) will be asking for the same thing.
      I ask the Minister to help encourage a more formal link and association. This will not mean committees, but if we are the only ones who will be able to call the authorities to account through Parliament we shall want to establish closer links for the sake of the authorities and the consumers. I do not support Third Reading, but I recognise that it is inevitable that it will receive it tonight.
      1.2 am
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: I want briefly to share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) about the change in arrangements for sewerage agencies that is contained in the Bill. I urge my hon. Friend to examine carefully the change that is proposed. In my experience the arrangements whereby district councils have the right to exercise the agency work effectively, informally, efficiently and cheaply. It could be costly to change the present arrangement and I hope that my hon. Friend will re-examine the proposed change.
      1.3 am
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are about to complete the second reorganisation of the water industry in 10 years. Rather than having learnt by the mistakes of the previous reorganisation, the Government are extending and enlarging the mistakes. The Conservative Government between 1970 and 1974 reorganised local government, the Health Service and the

      295
      water industry. They were all pretty disastrous reorganisations, but of the three I believe that they made the worst job of the water industry. They have done little to remedy their earlier mistakes. Indeed, they have made them far worse.
      The Government have attacked the principle of local democracy. It is odd that a Government who are so dependent on the principle should be so happy to erode it at local level. Unless we are prepared to defend local democracy we can hardly expect others to defend and subscribe to the principle of national democracy. As long as the water authorities had an element of local democracy in them, it was considered necessary for an ombudsman to scrutinise individual complaints, to allow the press into their meetings and to have a substantial number involved in the letting of contracts so that it would be extremely difficult for an individual to be bribed or persuaded to allow a contract to go in a certain direction. The Government have decided drastically to reduce the element of democracy and the number of those involved in decision making, and at the same time they have made it far easier to corrupt the whole process. It seems that the Government feel that they no longer need to check.
      It is odd that when the Government set up a quango and appointments are made purely on the Government's whim, it is thought unnecessary to involve an ombudsman. This means that no one can make individual complaints aout maladministration. It is considered unnecessary for the press to be at meetings and no major safeguards are built into the new system to ensure that there are no allegations of corruption, or that no corruption actually occurs in the granting of contracts.
      Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree with the cynic, who may be the realist, who said that the only thing that makes sense in the proposals is the whiff of contracts?
      Mr. Bennett: I accept those comments. It will be difficult for the new water authorities to establish confidence in the general public on the basis on which they are appointed when there are none of the checks and balances that existed in the past.
      I very much regret that the Bill in no way deals with the major complaint of most constituents about the water authorities. The problem is that one has no control over the size of the bill. If one consumes less, the bill is not less. The Government keep saying that the water authorities should be treated like public utilities. The one thing that distinguishes the gas and electricity boards from water authorities is that the amount of gas and electricity that my constituents and others consume determines their bills. However, for water, there is no way in which they can control their bills. The Government should have introduced into the measure some rebate for those on low incomes, pensioners and others so that the ability of individuals to pay their water rates is taken into account.
      The Government should take account of people's consumption of water. Water consumption, by the elderly is small compared to that of neighbours who live in identical houses, who at the moment pay identical water rates, but consume different amounts.
      I deeply regret the fact that the Government have not looked at one of the reasons why the sewerage element of the water charges has gone up dramatically in many areas. In the north-west of England one of the major problems
      296
      is sewer dereliction. A number of sewers have collapsed. Most sewers in the big cities in the north-west were built last century, and were built well. They would have every prospect of lasting a long time if they had to deal merely with the sewage that travels through them. What has been destroying the sewers is not the sewage but the number of heavy road vehicles, particularly the heavy lorries, which now move about the city streets. It is a question whether those who are damaging the sewers should make more contribution to their renewal rather than letting the charge fall on those who live in the area, who in many instances do not want the heavy lorries there anyway.
      I also deeply regret the fact that the measure does not deal with water conservation. The demand in the water industry for new reservoirs has slackened because of the general malaise in the economy created by the Government. If the economy were to pick up, there might be demands for more reservoirs in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
      We should consider water conservation. It is crazy that considerable volumes of water fall on the roofs of most houses, and are used in no way, but become a further problem to be dealt with by the sewers. We should make some use of that water.
      With regard to domestic appliances, there are continual efforts to sell dishwashers and washing machines, which use vast quantities of water and are not designed to conserve water. In building regulations the systems for toilets are supposed to be designed now so that two different quantities of water are used, but there is no encouragement to individual householders to instal in replacement of a damaged system one that conserves water.
      There are no measures to encourage the sensible use of water in this country. The Government have missed an opportunity to bring some sense into water conservation and to ensure that we do not keep demanding more and more reservoirs all over the country to meet future needs for water when simple conservation measures and modifications to domestic appliances would enable us to make far better use of existing resources.
      We had a long debate earlier on the use of leisure facilities. Again, the Government have missed an opportunity to make far better use of those facilities and to do a little more to try to bring together the conflicting interests of the many groups that want to use water for leisure purposes.
      If the Government are so determined to break the link between the water authorities and local government, I hope that they will encourage local government to ensure that enforcement of proper standards is imposed on the water authorities and that the public health departments of many local authorities will be encouraged to take action against water authorities when failures of sewage works and equipment lead to major pollution problems.
      Finally, I am disappointed that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen did not give a clear undertaking that as soon as they have the opportunity they will reorganise the water industry and bring local democracy back to the collection and distribution of water and the collection of sewage, even if that means a national measure in relation to water collection. I deeply regret that after the 1973 reorganisation had made such a mess of the water industry the Labour Government merely embarked on consultations rather than actually putting the mess right. I hope that we should have a clear commitment today that the next

      297
      Labour Government will not simply wait and consult but will take action to put the industry back under local democratic control at the earliest possible opportunity.
      1.13 am
      Mr. Ioan Evans: Having served on the Committee and spent a great deal of time trying to persuade the Government to think again on many of the matters that we have discussed on Report and now on Third Reading, I hope that there will be some deep thinking by the Government when the Bill is considered in another place and some serious amendments made before it returns here.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) described what a future Labour Government should do. I am sure that he is right and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who is present for this debate, will agree that a Labour Government should not allow this legislation to remain on the statute book. I appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North about what the last Labour Government should have done about the 1973 Act, but he will realise the difficulties that we had in that parliament. I think that the belief was that one should not start reorganising again immediately after a major reorganisation but should first consider the effects.
      It is important that Governments should think things through before introducing legislation. The weakness of the Government is that they are still thinking about the Bill on Report and Third Reading. Indeed, Ministers have told us today that they are still not in a position to say how they will proceed but are having consultations. That is scandalous.
      If we were to nominate the 10 worst Bills in this Parliament, this Bill would certainly feature in the list. It is a damnable Bill. It does nothing to solve the problems facing the water industry. The Government recognise that the 1973 reorganisation was wrong, but this Bill is even worse. At least the 1973 Act allowed for the representation of local authorities. The Bill cuts out local authority representatives completely.
      We have heard a great song from Conservative Members about not wanting a lot of quangos. They say that they want bodies to be accountable, yet we are creating 10 quangos, the members of which are nominated by and are the servants of the Secretary of State. Moreover, we have a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales in a country which is predominantly Labour. He will nominate those who will serve on a body that will not represent the beliefs of people in Wales. The same will happen in many regions in England, such as the north and the midlands.
      I congratulate the Secretary of State on being the successor of the present Secretary of State for Defence. If we are to have regional bodies, I should have thought that they would be more accountable if they consisted of people who had been elected to local authorities rather than those who are nominated by the Secretary of State. Local authority representatives served water authorities well, but the fact that they are democratically elected representatives is of no account to this Government.
      The Government say that they will consider making appointments. We are to have the farcical circumstance that some members of the bodies will have experience of fishing, others will have experience of agriculture, still others will have experience of local government. There
      298
      might be a councillor who does a little fishing and a little farming, but there is no guarantee that there will be accountability.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend put on record his anxiety, which is shared by the rest of the Labour Party, that the executive appointees will not be subjected to any scrutiny through election? What is more, the press is to be excluded from meetings of water authorities. They are to be shut out of them deliberately and will be limited to press conferences afterwards. That is a real step backwards for democracy.
      Mr. Evans: All hon. Members who have served on the Committee have expressed deep anxiety about the way in which local authorities are being treated. Local authorities throughout Britain, their members and their associations oppose what the Government are doing about local government representation. There is no justification for doing away with such representation.
      The Government have paid tribute to the work of the National Water Council. In Committee, we discovered the emergence of an association of the water regions. There is to be a National Water Council under another name. We do not know what will happen. Presumably consultations are still taking place. I hope that there are consultations before the Bill returns from the other place, but they just go on and on. We do not know what body will replace the National Water Council.
      The Government's action is deplorable. If we have a regional system of organising water, not a national one, there must be a national water policy. If there is a national water policy—every nation must have one—there must be an organisation such as the National Water Council.
      The Water Space Amenity Commission has also been abolished. The Government have made only a few concessions in that regard. In Committee, we found that the National Water Council dealt with the activities of overseas water authorities.
      Other countries are developing their water industries. The National Water Council has put them in touch with regional water authorities. That has meant trade for our industries. We have put them in touch with companies that can help them to develop their water industries. When I challenged the Minister on that point, he said that a company would be formed. One of his colleagues said that it would be named the Aberdare company. We can take jokes, but it is a serious business. What about the company? We have not been told the details yet. What will happen to the important work of the National Water Council in dealing with other countries?
      The House as a whole has realised the importance of developing the role of the local authority commissioner. Local water industry boards have been responsible to the local authority commissioner. People who felt that there had been maladministration complained to the ombudsman. The Government are abolishing that role. It is not a step forward. We had hoped that there would be a role for the ombudsman in other Government activities.
      Hon. Members have referred to the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977. The Labour Government's activities were not sufficient to deal with injustices whereby people in different regions paid a different price for an adequate water supply. There are great injustices. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) dealt with the matter. We have heard

      299
      assurances that a Labour Government will tackle the problem. Someone said that it was a burning question in Wales. It is an importat and serious question which the Government have ignored.
      The Franks report and the way in which the press was treated have been referred to today. The Prime Minister, in her maiden speech, said that the press should be allowed access to certain discussions. Yet the Government will exclude the press from discussions among the water authorities. Until the Bill is enacted, the press are allowed to attend meetings. We have heard quotations from numerous editors who are deeply concerned about the effect of the Government's proposals. There are to be arranged meetings—no doubt they will refer to recommendations being made by the water boards—
      Mr. Spearing: Paragraphs in the report.
      Mr. Evans: They will refer to certain of their activities. Until now members of the press hae been allowed to listen to the deliberations.
      There is a need for national negotiations on wages in the industry. The Government's proposals are a major step backwards and a recipe for chaos. Different arrangements will be made at different trade union negotiations in different regions. Will there be a great disparity in the wages paid to workers doing a similar job?
      The Bill is deplorable. I hope that major amendments will be made in another place. If not, I hope that my right hon.and hon. Friends, who said that a Labour Government will not sustain the measure, will make it a priority to introduce legislation to organise the water industry on a far better basis.
      1.24 am
      Mr. Giles Shaw: Of course, there are those who see no prospect of improvement for the water industry in this Bill and who wish to oppose the principles on which it is based. Therefore, it is unlikely that my remarks will help to alleviate their worries. However, I make it clear that we must form the association of water authorities. We have always said that there are some essential functions on which there should be consultation between regional water authorities and agreements on policies to be pursued. They should be the basis of agreement between the authorities and not emanate from a statutorily based, separate organisation. Those consultations, and the policies that emerge from them, should be provided at a lower cost to the consumer and should be more efficient. The association of water authorities has issued its memorandum of association. Matters are proceeding, but the consultations are incomplete.
      The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), who has now resumed his silent seat on the Opposition Front Bench, rather than his loquacious seat, should bear in mind that the continuing negotiations show that progress is being made. He would be the first to be upset if we did not have full and adequate consultations about such an important industry. We are even consulting the House of Commons and have made significant changes to the Bill as a result of that consultation. Let us draw pleasure and, I hope, comfort from that.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) mentioned research. There is a commitment that research should continue. The water authority
      300
      chairmen recognise that fact and they also recognise the collective importance of backing the water research centre, which is a crucial part of the research in the industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) asked about sewerage arrangements, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I know about the worries of local authority associations on such matters. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will know that we distributed the consultation paper on amendments, and it is likely that amendments will be made in another place which will have resulted from the consultations that are still being assessed. However, I assure my hon. Friends that the Government emphasise the fact that there should be no fundamental change in the present position. The Government do not intend to go beyond the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which was that no fundamental changes should be made. The agency arrangements should continue to play a major role in the way in which sewerage and drainage are undertaken by local authorities. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission confirmed that, in many cases, those arrangements work well. When we have reached firm conclusions, we shall introduce amendments in another place and there will be a subsequent opportunity for the House to discuss those issues.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) asked about export powers. In addition to the assurances that I gave to him in Committee, may I say that we shall ensure that water authorities which set up arrangements for overseas ventures will be strictly controlled. The bodies will be required to report to the Secretary of State any likely loss under a contract and how they propose to remedy it, to keep separate accounts for overseas business—which in many cases will be business undertaken by a separately established company—to take one year with another to meet their outgoings, to meet on their overseas activities any financial targets set for that business as a whole and, finally, to take out insurance and require bonds where necessary. In that way, proper competitive and fair conditions will be applied to the activities that water authorities undertake in overseas markets. However, they should be encouraged to take those opportunities where there are export orders to be won.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that there should be close contact with Members of Parliament in the new phase of water authorities. Water authority chairmen would welcome that, and I am sure that that is the case in the north-west as it is in other areas. Assistance with water bills is available under DHSS arrangements but is not available in the same context as a rebate for local rates, as water bills are charges for services that have been delivered.
      I am well aware that there are some major differences of view. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) launched his attack on what is proposed in a most extraordinary way. I take note of his views on this matter. Many hon. Members have played a part in the proceedings. I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and my hon. Friends who are present tonight. I value their support and help in processing the Bill. It is a further step forward in trying to make improvements in the way in which water authorities discharge their functions. Based on principles with which my hon. Friends

      301
      will be content, I trust that commercial operations run in the water authorities will gain the confidence of the House and of consumers.
      1.32 am
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I was not in the Chamber earlier as I have been in the Committee dealing with the Transport Bill. If Conservative Members are worried about the Bill going on into the night, they should not be trying to trample through Parliament in such rapid succession legislation which takes many hon. Members into Committees because the Government want to get the transport legislation, for example, on the statute book in order to affect the position of local authorities in the next financial year. If the Government had any sense, and introduced legislation in a more ordered way, it would not be necessary to have to spend long hours in late sittings, as Parliament would not be subjected to the pressure it is under purely as a result of the action of the Government.
      It is a matter of concern that bodies that are already regarded with some dissatisfaction by the consumer because of their remoteness, should be made even more remote by the Government by replacing the indirect nominations from the elected bodies—the local authorities—with executive appointees, who moreover, will not be subject to proper and adequate scrutiny through the local press. The local papers keep an eye on what local water authorities are doing and report to the consumers in their regions. Many local papers have expressed strong criticism of the Government for taking away the obligation of local authorities, including the water authorities, to be subject to such scrutiny. Indeed, local authority representation on the water authority is indirect. There are no direct elections.
      The Opposition should seek, when we get into government after the next election, to replace these appointees with directly elected representatives on the water authorities so that there is more accountability, and give the press access to their meetings.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, there will be a strong feeling that behind closed doors funds may be misapplied, tenders wrongly allocated and rules bent instead of the open decision-making to which our democratic bodies are subject. This Bill is a retrograde step. It is a move closer to central government control. That is characteristic of this legislation and of other Bills such as the Transport Bill. The Government's claim is that the man in Whitehall knows best.
      302
      We see Conservative Members of Parliament on television talking about abolishing the metropolitan county councils and suggesting that those elected bodies should be replaced by boards of people nominated from metropolitan district councils, the very system which the Conservative Government are abolishing for the water boards. If it has merit for metropolitan county councils, it is strange that in another area the self-same Government formed by the Conservative Party are abolishing the system which they propose as a suitable replacement for metropolitan county councils.
      The best method of accountability in a democracy is a democratically elected body. We are a democratically elected body. If anybody interferes with Parliament or makes suggestions about interfering with Parliament, there are cries about breach of privilege. When people stand up in the Gallery and make suggestions about what we should be debating there are great cries about non-interference with an elected body. But when it comes down to water authorities, even the modest vestiges of democracy are swept aside by the very people who talk in such glowing terms about parliamentary democracy.
      This is simply a further aspecct of the corporate state which is developing under the present regime and is a half-way stage towards privatisation. Some of the water concerns are potentially highly profitable. By virtue of their organisation they are bound to be monopolies. Under this sort of system, with a narrow group of executives running these businesses, they would be much more easily sold off to private enterprise. Indeed, some water supplies are already operated by the private sector.
      The trade unions do not want that sort of reorganisation. They view it with apprehension and concern. If the Minister is not aware of it, there is the making of a major dispute in the water industry. It is very much to be hoped that the Minister will keep the House closely informed.
      This Bill clearly cannot assist in maintaining good industrial relations within the industry. Therefore, on those counts hopefully it will not come into operation by virtue of the curtailment of the life of the Government. When the Labour Party gets into power we will establish a democratically elected system which is genuinely accountable. We will not only apply our policy of open government in central Government but will restore open government at this level by giving the press access to the control of these important bodies.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  Industrial Regeneration (West London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  1.38 am
  Mr. Harry Greenway: There is widespread anxiety among the business community in west London over what they consider to be severe hindrances to economic growth, hindrances which could well be repeating themselves in some form in other constituencies. To bring this anxiety into perspective it should be noted that the industrial and commercial community of west London stretches from the heart of inner London Hammersmith and Fulham through Ealing, Hounslow and Hillingdon to Heathrow airport. Hon. Members who represent these areas are very concerned about industry in the area. I note the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), which shows his concern about this important matter.
  West London has a total area of 60,000 acres and a working population of nearly 450,000. It contains thousands of vigorous small firms in the manufacturing and service sectors, together with a large number of major manufacturing companies, including household names such as Beecham, Gillette, Glaxo, Honeywell and IBM, many of which make a valuable contribution to our export figures.
  A report was recently prepared for the West London Group of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which clearly shows the need for positive action by local authorities, the GLC and central Government in order to bolster industry and commerce in the area and reverse the trend of unemployment. West London has not been insulated from the effects of the recession we have been going through in recent years. Unemployment has risen to levels well above anything experienced in the post-war period, despite the area retaining its basic resilience and the fact that many firms are expanding and consolidating their activities in west London. We should be grateful for the fact that these firms are showing their confidence, not only in the area but in our future economic position and that some local boroughs are supporting the initiatives of business men by designing land for industrial estates.
  However, business men feel, and I agree with their view, that, despite all the hopeful pointers for the future, certain factors are bearing down on them and making it more difficult for them to compete. Some of these factors are the fault of the boroughs, some the fault of the GLC and others the fault of central Government. In particular, three issues stand out as of prime concern—regional planning, the burden of rates and transport policies.
  Let me deal with each in turn, but before doing so I should like to quote what was said recently by Mr. Keith Barratt, the chairman of the west London group of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He is convinced that should the appropriate measures that I am about to outline be acted upon, the result will be more jobs for west London and that the area could become a growth pole for the wider region, with significant spillover effects for the whole of London and, indeed, our industrial and commercial recovery as a whole.
  For much of the post-war period, regional planning policy has been based on offering business men as a whole a series of incentives aimed at encouraging them to go to
  304
  some other part of the country. In reality, this has effectively meant a policy that has restricted the freedom of some business men to expand or locate in their preferred sites.
  In times of overall prosperity and industrial growth, this policy may be defensible, although some would even question that—myself among them. However, in a recessionary economic climate, the costs of such a policy to the community are indefensible. Surely no one would disagree that every possible investment should be sought and encouraged wherever it may be proposed. I emphasise the importance of this. There is no doubt that London as a whole is affected by attempts to direct industrial and commercial development to regions such as Wales, Scotland and the north-east—away from London. Tragically, the result is that this policy merely causes the supression of expansion. It harms London, but produces no benefit elsewhere either.
  Put another way, it is now widely agreed that the nation's education standards are not improved by condemning or damaging the growth of good schools. The same applies to industry. Industrial prosperity is not boosted by unfair discrimination against London. Apart from the inner urban sector, west London as a whole does not receive any of the major incentives for industrial development and little official thought is given to encouraging firms to stay in this area. In some cases, when firms move away from London, they take skilled staff with them. Business men in west London do not support or seek indiscriminate handouts of public money, but nor do they seek penalties on operating their businesses in a way that they know will bring the greatest benefits for jobs.
  The point has been made that the Japanese operate discrimination against British business men. For many of those same business men in west London, discrimination operates from within, yet it is national economic policy to improve the competitiveness of British industry. This policy is not helped by the discrimination in favour of development areas and suchlike, which makes it harder for industry and commerce in west London to compete on equal terms.
  Furthermore, the original concepts upon which this type of regional policy was based are outdated. In some parts of west London, the unemployment rate has recently reached that of Wales. In addition to that discriminatory regional policy, business men in west London are faced by the GLC's operation of its own form of intra-regional policy, whereby certain areas are designated as "preferred" for various forms of activity. This colours the GLC's whole approach to planning applications referred to it by the boroughs, for it has to approve any departures from the Greater London development plan.
  Rigid distinctions are made on planning applications as between industry, office and warehouse developments, particularly for change of use applications. In some instances, the zoning criteria have not been changed since the initial development plan of 1965, many years ago. Surely such category distinctions, some of which date back almost 20 years, have no place in the 1980s. What is needed is maximum flexibility, speed and imagination by planning authorities, especially the GLC, in processing applications. The costs of delay to firms and thus to the whole community can be, and frequently are, very severe.
  In the longer term, the rating system requires national reform, but, in the meantime, more needs to be done to make rating authorities much more aware of the burdens

  305
  that rates impose on business, and the adverse effects that they can have on developments, and therefore on employment. Rates must be paid by a given date, irrespective of the financial position of the company. The report to the west London group of the LCCI shows that in many cases high rates cause firms to cut their employment levels, and that in some cases firms are lured to relocate in other parts of the country where rates are lower. This is something that the GLC and other boroughs in west London should consider much more carefully, particularly those—notably the GLC—that are quick to criticise the unemployment levels in their areas.
  In the past four years, the average increase in rates in west London has been between 16 and 21 per cent. a year. It has represented the fastest rising element of business costs—higher than the increase in energy prices and in retail prices generally. Naturally the pace of increase has varied from year to year and from borough to borough. Some have made great efforts to try to hold down rate increases in the past year. Notable among those boroughs is the London borough of Ealing, which is Conservative controlled.
  However, it must be said that recently the GLC has been responsible for a huge zproportion of the overall rates increase. In some instances the share of the GLC rate in total borough rates levied has increased from about 10 per cent. four years ago to some 25 per cent. now. No one should forget that money that is taken from industry and commerce in that way comes out of resources normally available for financing expansion and the creation of further employment opportunities.
  In short, excessive rates cost jobs and can destroy the seedcorn of future business and community prosperity. Although the GLC and some boroughs must take a share of responsibility for what has been happening, it is only fair to point out that disproportionately high rates are not caused solely by the actions of local authorities. It is unfortunate, for example, that rate support grant has been diverted away from London in recent times.
  The third area of concern is the need for a fast and efficient transportation network, the lifeblood of business. In many ways west London is ideally situated. It is within easy reach of both central London and Heathrow airport. However, if full advantage is to be taken of that, more attention must be given to improving and developing the road system in particular. The current congestion on roads in many parts of west London is unacceptable, not merely because of the inconvenience. Delays impose real costs on businesses and hamper efficiency at a time when businesses are making great efforts to improve their competitiveness. Unfortunately, the roads issue is complicated by the division of responsibility. The Department of Transport is responsible for trunk roads, the GLC for metropolitan roads, and the boroughs for the remaining primarily residential roads. That generates many problems and paradoxes of funding and determining priorities.
  The GLC is completely failing to give priority to many roads for which there is a desperate need. Improvements are required on many roads, including the Uxbridge road. Business depends on efficient routes for goods and materials to and from industrial estates, and those feeder road links must be given high priority. In general, it must be said that the area has a good communication layout from east to west, but that north-south links need considerable improvement. The M25 will certainly
  306
  provide some help, but a coherent improvement programme is needed within the M25 ring with access to the motorway. There is also need for a fundamental reform of overlapping functions. Wherever possible, the boroughs should have the power of decision and implementation with the responsibility for overall co-ordination—assuming, as I hope it will, that the GLC will be abolished—going to the London Boroughs Association.
  Public transport is another aspect of transport policy that requires greater co-ordination. There is a particular scope in west London for more harmonisation between London Transport and British Rail suburban services. Finally, Heathrow airport represents a facility of great benefit to west London, but it could be more efficiently used
  Those are some of the areas in which action is needed to improve the commercial and industrial base of west London. There is no doubt that it is an area of tremendous potential for industrial and commercial growth. Its location, diverse industrial structure, abundant and well-trained labour force make it well placed to take advantage of a future pick-up in the economy.
  Many local boroughs have a positive attitude to the developments of local industry and commerce. They are providing industrial estates and are keen to work with the private sector in imaginative schemes for site development as well as providing advice on a wide range of business needs. The Conservative-controlled London borough of Ealing has an excellent record of keeping down rates, which is in strong contrast to Labour boroughs such as Brent. However, I speak of the broad area of west London in the debate. Too often the objectives of local boroughs, the GLC and the Government differ.
  To sum up, there are three main areas of concern for business men. First, the whole system of planning applications suffers from inappropriate interventions from bodies such as the GLC which inhibit many profitable developments. Secondly, rates—especially those of the GLC—are stemming expansion and employment opportunities. Thirdly, there is an urgent need for the reordering of road priorities in west London and for more powers and money to be devolved to the boroughs.
  The labour force in west London has an enormous range of skills and an excellent reputation for being reasonable and relatively free from industrial strife. Any employer setting up a business or wishing to expand an existing one in west London should have no difficulty in obtaining the type of employee he needs, whether that employee be an unskilled labourer or a highly qualified professional. Throughout west London there are outstandingly good public transport facilities by underground and British Rail. Despite the recession, shopping facilities are being steadily improved, an example of which is the major new shopping centre in Ealing.
  Finally, the Conservative-controlled boroughs, of which Ealing is an example, while still continuing to produce a good public service, have kept down rates to the lowest possible levels. They should be rewarded with a Government policy that assists and encourages their prudence.
  1.55 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on obtaining this opportunity to bring before the House the question of

  307
  the needs and opportunities for industrial regeneration in west London. In doing so, he has acted in character. He is assiduous in questions and in correspondence about this problem and is always, as he was tonight, constructive.
  As my hon. Friend has emphasised, this part of London has been the focus of growth over many decades and has played a vital part in the growth of the region and the nation. I understand well my hon. Friend's points about west London not being immune from the effects of the recession.. I note the closures, which will doubtless be regretted and cause great anxieties for the families affected.
  As my hon. Friend will know well from his contacts with the companies in the area, the recession is worldwide, hitting exporters, because even if they increase their share of export markets, they often find that they are having to fight hard because the markets are declining. No area anywhere, here or abroad, can be immune from the recession.
  West London is relatively fortunate in that it has a strong and growing service sector that is still comparatively buoyant and in the longer term may compensate for the declining manufacturing employment in the area. As my hon. Friend says, Heathrow airport dominates this part of London and the construction of terminal 4 should provide a boost of about 6,000 jobs in the area by 1985, even without terminal 5.
  West London is also relatively fortunate in that it has, as my hon. Friend has said, the strengths and skills to bring about economic regeneration as industrial patterns change. Not least of its advantages is its strong base of small firms to which my hon. Friend referred. He will know of the strong emphasis that the Government are putting on giving opportunities to, and removing obstacles from the path of, small firms.
  When one looks at west London, it is clear that these opportunities are being taken and that there is, as my hon. Friend has said, plenty of confidence in the area's future—the regeneration is already under way. In Ealing alone, between 200,000 and 300,000 sq ft of new factory space has been completed each year in recent years. Developers are confident of the regeneration of west London. Judging by the rate at which the industrial space is being occupied, this confidence is well founded. For example, vacant space on the Park Royal industrial estate has fallen from 26 per cent. in 1979 to 14 per cent. in 1982, despite the recession. Some of the major employers have also expressed their confidence in the area.
  It is against this background that I turn to my hon. Friend's particular points, the first of which is regional policy. I wish to make a number of points about this, all of which I hope will help my hon. Friend.
  Since this Government came into office, the restrictions on the freedom of business men to expand or locate in their preferred locations has been removed. I announced to the House on 4 December 1981 the suspension of the IDC control. There is therfore no question of this Government directing industrial and commercial development to Wales, Scotland or elsewhere—that situation no longer exists. The stick has been removed and the possible embargo on major developments in the non-assisted areas has gone. Regional policy is now dependent soley on the financial incentives to attract new employment into the areas.
  308
  The areas for assistance themselves have been reduced. When we came into office, 44 per cent. of the working population was in assisted areas of one form or another. That was a major element of what my hon. Friend would describe as unfair competition for the non-assisted areas. Moreover, it meant that the aid was being spread too thinly and was clearly proving to be ineffective. We have therefore reduced the assisted area coverage to about 27 per cent. of the country. That is right for regional policy, and for the assisted areas. It also means that the unfair competition aspect for the non-assisted areas has been greatly reduced.
  Furthermore, many of the schemes in my Department are nationwide. I refer to section 8 of the Industry Act, the small firms measures, support for innovation and so on. In Ealing, since 1979, 16 offers of assistance under the various measures amounting to £868,000 have been given. I sometimes think that the concentration on discussing regional assistance means that companies both in the assisted areas and in the non-assisted areas neglect these other measures. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be drawing them to the attention of companies in his area.
  My hon. Friend said that west London does not receive any major incentives for industrial development. That is not so. A large part of the incentives for industrial development and industrial investment in this country, including premises, is given through the tax system and capital allowances which are available all over the country. These incentives and many locational and other advantages are possessed by Ealing and west London. There is much evidence, which I have in front of me, of substantial industrial redevelopment and much evidence of people getting on with the job of providing new jobs to replace the old.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there must remain a case for regional policy and special assistance to those parts of the country without west London's advantages, with much deeper structural change problems and with persistently higher rates of unemployment. The highest resident-based unemployment rate in west London is 14·5 per cent. in Southall. In my hon. Friend's constituency, it is 7·7 per cent., a tribute to the work of so many there, including himself.
  The unemployment rate for the whole of Wales in December was 16·9 per cent. Of the 40 travel-to-work areas in Wales to which he referred, only 14 had unemployment rates below this national figure. It is not realistic to compare the unemployment rate for a small job centre area such as Southall, located within a large travel-to-work area, with the rate for a whole travel-to-work area in Wales. With this perspective, I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that west London is not suffering the fundamental structural weaknesses to be found in the assisted areas.
  I wish to deal now with planning difficulties and to mention a number of points raised by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties associated with the zoning criteria in development plans. He will appreciate that much of what he had to say was directed to the Greater London Council. I hope that his remarks will be noted by that authority. The Government have been moving in the direction that my hon. Friend has urged. The Government, in the 1981 amendment to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, ensured that planning permission could be given automatically to changes of use from general industrial and warehousing uses to light

  309
  industrial use where an undertaking occupies no more than 235 square metres. In circular 22/80 to local authorities, the Government pointed out the damaging effects of rigid zoning policies and encouraged the authorities to take the more flexible approach that my hon. Friend recommends.
  My hon. Friend asked for the application of maximum speed and imagination by planning authorities in processing applications. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did much in his previous capacity to speed up planning procedures and gave particular priority to industrial applications. As a result, in general, 70 per cent. of applications are now processed within eight weeks compared with 60 per cent. when we took office.
  I am in total agreement with the points made by my hon. Friend in relation to the rates burden. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said in Birmingham the other day, these are a heavy and sometimes crippling burden on many companies and we are particularly concerned to ensure that the interests of industrial and commercial ratepayers are safeguarded. We emphasise constantly the threat to local jobs of high spending by local authorities. These are difficult issues that are not directly under Government control. My hon. Friend is aware of the various measures that the Government have taken to bring about a more realistic approach and a more realistic level of expenditure by local authorities. In particular, by proposing a severe holdback scheme in 1983ߝ84 for local authorities which substantially exceed their expenditure targets, the Government aim to prevent this inexorable rate rise.
  My hon. Friend referred to the high level of rate increases in west London over the past four years. I am pleased to see that for 1982ߝ83 the percentage increase ranged between 0 per cent. in Hounslow and 17 per cent. in Hillingdon. My hon. Friend referred to the considerable efforts that Ealing and Hillingdon borough councils, both under Conservative control, have made.
  For the 1983ߝ84 financial year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has allowed no local authority an expenditure target more than 4 per cent. above its current year's budget. Ealing has done as well as any authority, and has a target of £112·8 million for 1983ߝ84. If it meets that target—and I understand that it is its intention to do everything it can to avoid grant holdback—Ealing will receive £55·1 million block grant from the Government. This is an increase of more than £1·5 million on the grant it is likely to get in the current year.
  Last year, with its 42 per cent. increase in precept since Labour took control and for the immediate future, the rub lies with the GLC. I hope very much that Ealing ratepayers will face a very low rate increase next year. How much will depend upon the actions of the GLC. I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks in that context will have been noted.
  Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of fast and efficient transport for business and industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the trunk road network in London. In west London, these are the radial routes A30
  310
  and M3, A4, M4 and A40 Western Avenue. My hon. Friend knows those roads well. He knows that I do not have ministerial responsibility for the area, but perhaps I may comment on what he said. The orbital trunk roads in west London are the North Circular road A406 and the outer London orbital M25 which presently reaches northward to the west of Heathrow. These radial trunk roads will be the main feeders to M25, and I understand that all will be connected to the M25 in about three years from now.
  On this network of trunk road radials and orbitals my right hon. Friend's construction programme includes completion of the M25, two-level interchanges on the A40 in the London borough of Hillingdon, and a substantial improvement of the North Circular road from Chiswick northward to the Harrow road junction in the London borough of Brent. No further major schemes are proposed on the other trunk roads in the area because they are regarded as being already to an acceptable standard.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a complication arising from the division of responsibilities for the roads in London, and this matter was foremost in the considerations of the Select Committee which reported to this House last summer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering the recommendations of that Committee.
  Apart from the North Circular road and the M25, the main north-south links in west London are the responsibility of the Greater London Council. It is up to that council to arrange its road constructon programme and priorities. The principal scheme it has in hand in west London is the Hayes bypass, from just north of the M4 northward to the "White Hart" junction on the Ruislip road in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Greenway: We do not want it.
  Mr. MacGregor: I understand that that scheme is priced at about £60 million. I heard what my hon. Friend said about it. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is prepared to consider funding under the transport supplementary grant arrangements. No doubt my hon. Friend will take up the matter with him. I believe that this is the full extent of GLC major road schemes to improve north-south links—except, perhaps, for the Roxborough bridge in Harrow at the junction of the A404 and the A312.
  On the question about who should be responsible for roads in London, the Select Committee on Transport has analysed a number of weaknesses in the present organisation of transport responsibilities in London and has made some far-reaching recommendations as to how they might be tackled. The Government are carefully considering these recommendations, and a response will be published as soon as possible.
  On public transport, the Government, too, would like to see closer integration between London Transport and British Rail in those places where there are now clearly gross anomalies, ans we are encouraging both operators to examine the scope for further progress in this area.

  311
  In conclusion, the area of west London—as my hon. Friend pointed out clearly; he described many of the advantages which I am sure will attract businesses to the area—is an area of industrial and commercial potential which will certainly benefit from the economic recovery when it comes. I have been most impressed with the positive approach of developers, industrialists and the borough councils in this area. I hope that my hon. Friend
  312
  will agree that the Government are making an important contribution to west London's regeneration by helping to remove many of the constraints mentioned by my hon. Friend this evening—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eight minutes past Two o'clock.

TRADE
  Trading Practices
  Trading Practices
  James Brewster and Associates
  James Brewster and Associates
  Great Universal Stores
  Great Universal Stores
  Stranded Vessels (Salvage)
  Stranded Vessels (Salvage)
  Consumer Credit (Regulations)
  Consumer Credit (Regulations)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Textile Imports
  Textile Imports
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
ENERGY
  Home Energy Advisers
  Home Energy Advisers
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Sizewell Inquiry
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United Nations General Assembly
  United Nations General Assembly
  North and South Korea (Reunification)
  North and South Korea (Reunification)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Turkey
  Turkey
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Lesotho
  Lesotho
WALES
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Foreign Investment
  Foreign Investment
  Rural Buildings (Use)
  Rural Buildings (Use)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Matches and Lighters (Duty)
  Matches and Lighters (Duty)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Travel-to-Work Costs (Tax Relief)
  Travel-to-Work Costs (Tax Relief)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorism (Murders)
  Terrorism (Murders)
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Risley Remand Centre
  Risley Remand Centre
  National Association of Victim Support Schemes
  National Association of Victim Support Schemes
  VIPs (Protection)
  VIPs (Protection)
  Firearms (Deaths)
  Firearms (Deaths)
  Terrorism (Statistics)
  Terrorism (Statistics)
  Turkish Political Refugees
  Turkish Political Refugees
  Norfolk County Constabulary
  Norfolk County Constabulary
  Yorkshire Ripper (Report)
  Yorkshire Ripper (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Fishing Industry (Redundancy Payments Scheme)
  Fishing Industry (Redundancy Payments Scheme)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Liverpool (School Leavers)
  Liverpool (School Leavers)
  Job Vacancies
  Job Vacancies
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Assaults on Teachers
  Assaults on Teachers
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  British Antarctic Survey
  British Antarctic Survey
SCOTLAND
  Job Creation (Glasgow)
  Job Creation (Glasgow)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Terrorism (Murders)
  Terrorism (Murders)
  Firearms (Murders)
  Firearms (Murders)
DEFENCE
  HMS "Conqueror"
  HMS "Conqueror"
  Knoydart Estate
  Knoydart Estate
  South Korea
  South Korea
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Arms Reductions
  Arms Reductions
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Ministerial Visits (Costs)
  Ministerial Visits (Costs)
  House of Lords (Members' Interests)
  House of Lords (Members' Interests)
  Railways (Wales)
  Railways (Wales)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Comptroller and Auditor General
  Comptroller and Auditor General
  Fuel Debts (Disconnections)
  Fuel Debts (Disconnections)
  Civil Servants (Retirement)
  Civil Servants (Retirement)
  Falkland Islands (Franks Report)
  Falkland Islands (Franks Report)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Fuel Bills (Assistance)
  Fuel Bills (Assistance)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  General Practitioners (Premises)
  General Practitioners (Premises)
  Social Security Offices (Manpower)
  Social Security Offices (Manpower)
  Benefit Offices (Bedfordshire)
  Benefit Offices (Bedfordshire)
  Prescription Charges (Cystic Fibrosis)
  Prescription Charges (Cystic Fibrosis)
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Supplementary Benefit (Claims Processing)
  Supplementary Benefit (Claims Processing)
  Resource Allocation Working Party (Population Statistics)
  Resource Allocation Working Party (Population Statistics)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Tottenham)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Tottenham)
  National Health Service (Pay Review Board)
  National Health Service (Pay Review Board)
  Overseas Visitors (Hospital Treatment)
  Overseas Visitors (Hospital Treatment)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  District Health Authorities and Family Practitioner Committees (Liaison)
  District Health Authorities and Family Practitioner Committees (Liaison)
  Newham (Geriatric Facilities)
  Newham (Geriatric Facilities)
  Married Women (Family Income Supplement)
  Married Women (Family Income Supplement)
  Matthew Trust
  Matthew Trust
  Hepatitis
  Hepatitis
  Breast Prostheses
  Breast Prostheses
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Geriatric Patients
  Geriatric Patients
  Rubella
  Rubella
  Welfare Rights Centre, Liverpool
  Welfare Rights Centre, Liverpool
  Nurses (Accommodation Charges)
  Nurses (Accommodation Charges)
  Maternity and Neonatal Services
  Maternity and Neonatal Services
  Benefits
  Benefits
ENVIRONMENT
  Households (Numbers)
  Households (Numbers)
  Travellers (Accommodation)
  Travellers (Accommodation)
  Elderly Persons (Alarm and Communication Systems)
  Elderly Persons (Alarm and Communication Systems)
  Rate Support Grant Report
  Rate Support Grant Report
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
TRANSPORT
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  British Rail (Chairman)
  British Rail (Chairman)
  Serpell Report
  Serpell Report
  Transport Bill (Travel Concessions)
  Transport Bill (Travel Concessions)
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  M6 Motorway
  M6 Motorway

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Lord Carnock The Lord Carnock—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Nuclear Capability of USA and USSR
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 it has been authoritatively estimated that both the USA and the USSR have enough nuclear weapons to destroy both countries and their inhabitants several times over.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, there is no doubt that the Soviet Union and the United States could in theory destroy each other with nuclear weapons. But the whole purpose of NATO's deterrence policy is to safeguard peace between East and West, and to ensure that the Russians are not tempted to initiate any hostilities and that a nuclear catastrophe could never occur. The Americans, with the full support of their allies, continue the search for radical reductions in nuclear armaments which are balanced and verifiable and thus maintain and enhance the security of both sides.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask him whether he agrees that in spite of peaceful declarations on both sides the practical consequence of ineffective attempts to reach multilateral agreement has been a constant escalation of nuclear arms on both sides? In this connection, has he received the recent declaration of the Warsaw Pact states, which I understand to be an attempt to arrest this situation; and if the Government have received the full text of the declaration, are they now in a position to say what is their response to it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I personally have not seen the full text; but I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the proposal for a non-aggression pact. In that case, we are always willing to study any serious proposal; but such pacts have been proposed before and, of course, they flow from the charter of the United Nations. To show our good intentions in this respect so far as Britain is concerned, I can say that we believe in the non-use of force in international affairs. Look what this country did last year to uphold that principle.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, on the question of weapons reductions, were the Government given any notice of the dismissal of Mr. Rostow and Mr. Starr, and of the appointment of Mr. Adelman? Are the Government acquainted with Mr. Adelman? Indeed, is he acquainted with Western Europe?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, such appointments are a matter for the Government concerned.
Lord Clewdwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while accepting the need for verification and proper consultation, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be quite wrong for the Government to resist any initiative in view of the undoubted danger of the escalation of nuclear weapons throughout the world? Is the Minister able to say what steps the Government are taking to move towards negotiation; that is to say, to test the offer which has been made by the new Soviet leader, rather than leave it in cold storage in the hope that somehow or other something may emerge in due course? What specific steps are Her Majesty's Government proposing to take?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. As I endeavoured to say in answer to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, we are always willing to look at any serious proposal. A proposal of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned could undoubtedly be looked at closely in one of the arms reduction talks which are going ahead at the present time in Geneva.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of the strongest supporters of NATO in this country have become thoroughly dissatisfied with the handling of disarmament questions by the United States Government? Will he draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the possibility that she might summon a meeting of the NATO Foreign Ministers to review the Geneva negotiations?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord on this matter, but I made it crystal clear on behalf of the Government when we debated the Motion of the noble Lord on arms control, that Her Majesty's Government in this country were very satisfied with the way in which they had been able to keep in contact with the United States on the arms control negotiations. I would simply remind the House that so far as intermediate nuclear force weapons are concerned in Europe, there is an enormous preponderance on the Soviet side threatening every country in Western Europe, and there is on the table a genuine offer from the United States on behalf of NATO which would remove this threat entirely. So far as strategic arms reduction talks are concerned, there is again reckoned to be a two-to-one advantage to Soviet Russia in terms of throw-weight of ballistic missiles; and, once again, there is a genuine and radical offer on the table from the United States for deep cuts in strategic weapons.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that there was a time in 1914 when the Russians and ourselves were allies? My family lost three cousins.

1281
I lost three cousins fighting on our side, not on the Russian side. Now that the balance of terror, the balance of nuclear weapons, is so equal, surely we ought to have a different strategy and try to make some sense, away from the lunatic path that we are pursuing?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness's question takes the whole House back to 1945, when we were allies at the end of a terrible war. Since then, as my noble friend Lord Beloff made clear in his speech on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, a few weeks ago in this House, there has been a continual escalation in the build-up of nuclear weapons on the Russian side, so that there is a vast preponderance in Soviet superiority. It is that which we want to try to put right so that there can be real security on both sides of the world.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the Russian offer now still regarded as on the table?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord refer to the offer which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, as being from the Warsaw Pact last week?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am referring to the last offer in regard to the SS20s.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat that any serious offer is an offer which I know the NATO countries would be ready to consider.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord the Minister has said, the Soviet Union have a massive preponderance of nuclear weapons over the West, one could understand it if they did not wish to enter into any form of negotiation to reduce what they have got—
A noble Lord: Question!
Lord Molloy: Or is it that they are such very good sports that they are going to wait until the massive preponderance they have has withered away? Is the noble Lord also aware that in very recent times there has been evidence produced by very experienced people that the monitoring of reductions of nuclear weapons is now almost a firm possibility? Bearing all that in mind, ought not we in this country to do our best to influence both the Americans and the Russians to talk seriously and to start implementing a reduction in these horrible and fearful weapons?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord in essence asks me, if the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact has an advantage in nuclear weapons, is it not unsurprising that they would be reluctant to give that up? My answer to that question is that we will not be threatened by anyone but we will not deploy our own INF weapons, provided the Russians will abandon their SS20s, which undoubtedly threaten the whole of Western Europe today. I repeat that we will of course seriously consider any proposals, but we will not be deflected by threats which are uttered from time to
1282
time, and are reported in the newspapers today as having been made by Mr. Gromyko.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister confirm that as yet he has received no offer which contains verification proposals?
Lord Belstead: That is my understanding, my Lords.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am much obliged.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that there has been quite a firm indication on the Warsaw Pact side that verification is now a possibility? Also, is it not unrealistic to exclude British and French nuclear weapons when estimating the balance of terror between the Warsaw Pact and the NATO powers? Having regard to all this, would not the noble Lord agree that some pressure should be put upon the United States to cease adopting so totally intransigent an attitude on these matters?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it really is absurd to put to Her Majesty's Government a suggestion that we should put pressure upon our greatest ally in order to study the absolutely fundamental question of verification which the Western countries have been putting upon the table for the Warsaw Pact to consider for years and years. If verification is a possibility, as the noble Lord says to the Goverment, then I would assure him that it will be considered seriously in the INF or the START talks taking place in Geneva. So far as the question of the British and French deterrents are concerned, a durable agreement has to be based upon the principle of parity between the two major nuclear weapons states.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would not the Government agree that a lot of this talk about nuclear preponderance is irrelevant and even absurd? All that is necessary for an effective nuclear deterrent is the capacity for a second strike to be able to inflict unacceptable damage on the adversary.
Lord Belstead: And that, my Lords, is precisely why the Western powers, on behalf of their peoples and on behalf of our future, are so worried that there is a monopoly in Europe of land-based intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Soviet hands.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with respect, having spent 11 minutes on one Question, I think we really should move on.
2.48 p.m.

Sunday Postal Collection: Restoration
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: 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 are their plans for restoring the postal collection on Sundays.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the question of restoration of the Sunday postal collection falls within the statutory responsibilities of the Post Office, and the Government have no power to intervene in the corporation's day-to-day operations. I understand that the Post Office has at present no plans for restoring this collection.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that rather unsatisfactory reply, may I ask whether or not he agrees that there must be something rather unbalanced in a society which is generous enough to consider the reopening of shops on Sundays but is unable to arrange for a satisfactory collection of post between the hours of 12 noon on Saturday and 9 a.m. on Monday mornings? It is a service which would be of inestimable benefit to large numbers of small businessmen in this country.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend, and indeed your Lordships' House, would agree that small shopkeepers and the Post Office are rather dissimilar organisations, but I would stress to my noble friend that the Post Office gives the information that there would be an additional cost of approximately £15 million per annum in restoring the Sunday collection. As I am sure my noble friend would also agree, we should allow the Post Office to manage; and it is their opinion that Sunday collection is most uneconomic, although it might appear necessary to individual Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in 1979, when the Post Office Board contained seven trade union members, the Post Office Board decided that it was both feasible and desirable to restore Sunday collections and decided unanimously so to do? However, when the question of Sunday collections went to the conference of Post Office workers in the summer, it was turned down by, if I recollect correctly, something in excess of 2,000 votes to seven—the seven being the seven trade union members of the Post Office Board. In the light of that experience, would the noble Lord agree that, while it may be desirable to restore Sunday collections, and while many old people would like to feel that their week-end letters are being speeded on their way, the prospect of their restoration is somewhat remote?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, certainly I and, I am sure, your Lordships are very grateful for the detailed information which the noble Lord has given us. I was not aware of those interesting figures which have enlightened me, and I shall bring the noble Lord's point to the attention of the chairman of the Post Office. But I would stress, in view of the point which the noble Lord made about old people posting their week-end letters, that the Post Office are satisfied with their quality of service performance. Indeed, the delivery of both first- and second-class mail is within striking distance of the targets of delivery of one day for first-class post and three days for second-class post.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that over the New Year a great many Post Office boxes were not cleared between 31st December and 4th January, and is not such a cessation of service by a nationalised monopoly a matter of considerable concern to Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I will bring my noble friend's concern to the attention of the Post Office Board. But, of course, my noble friend will be aware that in my part of the country—that is, Scotland—we have an additional day's bank holiday.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that many of us believe that workers in shops, in the Post Office and in other non-essential industries should be able to enjoy their family life on Sundays?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question. But certainly in all the answers that I have given so far I have stressed that this is a matter for the Post Office Board, and I am sure that they will bring the noble Lord's question to the attention of their workforce.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think it deplorable that the last week-day collection from the majority of boxes in London now takes place as early as half-past five in the afternoon?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand that in some areas there is a collection at seven o'clock, and that in some other areas there is an experimental collection at 6.30. But I believe that the 7 p.m. collection throughout the entire London postal district raised approximately 2 per cent. of the total mail collection, so that, somewhat naturally, the Post Office believed that this was uneconomic.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether I might help by drawing your Lordships' attention to the Companion to the Standing Orders which states:
"The tabling of Questions on nationalised industries is considered undesirable save for those asking for statistical information on a national basis or which raise matters of urgent public importance".
I just wonder whether we are getting into the difficulty of being rather generous in the interpretation of Standing Orders.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the strong feeling on the other side of the House that Post Office workers should be working on Sundays, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will seek to clarify how many Members on the other side of the House will be prepared to come to this Chamber on a Sunday morning and set an example to the Post Office workers?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord's question does not fall within the ambit of either the Question which I am attempting to answer or the guidance in the Companion. But perhaps he might relish the thought that many of your Lordships on both sides are in church on a Sunday morning.

European Social Fund: Allocations
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 has been the benefit to the United Kingdom from disbursements from the European Social Fund since the United Kingdom's accession to the latest convenient date.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in the years 1973 to 1982 the United Kingdom was allocated grants totalling £964 million from the European Social Fund, including £258 million in 1982. Grants from the European Social Fund have made a substantial, and very welcome, contribution to training and employment schemes in this country, especially for young people.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply? In view of the sometimes surprising mixture of successful applicants for grants compared with other, at least equally worthy, bodies which are probably too hard-pressed to discover the right application formula, would it be acceptable to make more widely known the correct method of application for these grants?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if anyone was in any doubt about how to apply, I am sure that if he were to get in touch with the Department of Employment he would be so instructed.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us what percentage we get out from what we put in?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I may tell the noble Lord that the social fund itself is 7 to 8 per cent. of the European budget—
Lord Paget of Northampton: I mean the lot.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be good enough to contain himself, I shall try to answer his question. As I said, the social fund is 7 to 8 per cent. of the European budget. Our average share of that fund since accession has been 23.8 per cent., and our share in 1982 was close on 30 per cent. If the noble Lord will be good enough to work out the figures from those statistics, which he can probably do in his head, he will come to the answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an assurance that where those grants are made—and, of course, where they are made they are welcome, although the percentage is low in view of our unemployment figures—the Government themselves do not reduce their grants in the same area by a similar amount?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that these grants are small. As I
1286
said, the United Kingdom received 30 per cent., which is a very substantial amount—
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Seven per cent.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I said that 30 per cent. of the social fund is given by the European Community to the United Kingdom. But I tell the noble Lord that, in our public estimates, the allocation of the contribution from the social fund is taken into account in arriving at the figures, and had it not been for the social fund the figures for public allocation would have been bound to be lower. Therefore, the grants have been a direct contribution to the additional amount which is spent on training, and such schemes.

Cruise Missiles: Launching Arrangements
2.58 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: 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, if and when "cruise missiles" are installed in the United Kingdom, firm arrangements will be made with the United States Government whereby the missiles can in no circumstances whatever be launched without the explicit consent of Her Majesty's Government, and if so, whether such arrangements, when concluded, will be laid before Parliament for approval.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government have made clear many times that we are, like successive Governments before us, satisfied with existing arrangements. Under these, the use by the United States in an emergency of bases in the United Kingdom (including cruise missile bases) will be a matter for joint decision between the British and American Governments in the light of circumstances at the time.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that not unexpected reply, may I ask him, in view of statements which have already appeared in the press, whether he can possibly deny that, unless the Government change their present attitude, we may quite well be committed to nuclear war, with all its appalling consequences, against the will of this country as expressed in Parliament?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in that assumption. The use of United States bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government, in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. The Government are aware that concern has been expressed about the effectiveness of these arrangements, and the Government are satisfied that the arrangements are effective.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to restate the fact that this arrangement

1287
was entered into by previous Governments of both kinds, and that therefore we have a bipartisan agreement which it would be very unwise to upset?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. It goes back to a communiqué issued in 1952, after discussions between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Truman, which confirmed arrangements reached earlier between Mr. Attlee and Mr. Truman. The arrangements are precisely those which have applied for nearly 30 years and which have been supported by successive Governments.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that yesterday in the other place a Defence Minister said that in the absence of concrete results in the INF negotiations in Geneva the deployment of cruise missiles would start at Greenham in December? Will the Minister say, first, whether the Government are satisfied with the present safeguards which ought to ensure that the British Government have control of any weapons and, secondly, what the Government's aims are at Geneva, in view of the fact that negotiations have gone on since December, 1979?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as the Geneva negotiations are concerned, of course it is our wish that we should achieve the zero option so that the threat of these intermediate range weapons would be removed from either side. So far as control is concerned, I repeat that the use of United States bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since these arrangements which he mentioned were entered into in 1952 there has emerged in Europe, as the noble Lord told us earlier, an overwhelming superiority directed at us, and that in our case destruction would mean that within 24 hours of these weapons being launched from this country at least 75 per cent. of our nation would be dead? In those new circumstances, is it not reasonable that we should have the say-so as to our nemesis?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have given the basis of the agreement about the use of bases in an emergency. It is a long-standing, well understood arrangement between United States Presidents and British Prime Ministers. I repeat that we are satisfied that these arrangements are effective.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Minister of State indicate that he knows as well as the rest of us that last time there were American nuclear missiles on British soil a Conservative Government, in which the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, was the Defence Minister, insisted on a physical dual key arrangement? Could the Minister say why he thinks it is unnecessary this time? Lastly, could the Minister say what reason he has to think that people will accept it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is referring to the Thor missiles which were based in the United Kingdom for only five years. They were the only nuclear missile system ever
1288
based in the United Kingdom to have been governed by a true dual key. The reason was that the missiles were owned and manned by the United Kingdom.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the House to understand that the use of the term "the use of bases" includes the launching of cruise missiles?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that the assurance he has given about some arrangement, the details of which are unknown to us, can be guaranteed in the future, and that that assurance has received the consent of either House of Parliament? Would it not be desirable for both Houses of Parliament to be given a definite assurance that we are entitled to retain some measure of independence in a matter of this kind?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I repeat what I have already said: that this is a very long-standing and well understood arrangement between United States Presidents and British Prime Ministers which, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale reminded the House, goes back over a period of about 30 years.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if we can believe the press, is it not a fact that the Americans have agreed, in principle, to our having a dual control, or dual key, provided that we agree to purchase the missiles? Would it not therefore be in our interests to spend a few hundred million pounds in order to have control of these missiles, rather than the reverse?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would not wish to comment upon anything which I have read in the press. A dual key arrangement would entail the United Kingdom purchasing the missiles and supporting equipment, except the warheads, and manning them in the same way as we do the Lance missiles in Germany. Since we are satisfied with the existing arrangements for the control of such weapons, we do not think that this would be a sensible use of defence resources.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the Minister's answer referred to American bases in this country. Would it be possible to have consultations with the new American Command for Europe which is to be established at High Wycombe, and with the NATO Reserve Command, except for Western Germany? If they are to control the use of weapons in the whole of Europe, how can there be consultations between our Government and them before they are used?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to that final question is that this is a long-standing, well understood arrangement between Presidents and Prime Ministers, and it works.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that in time of war what really counts is not political control but operational control? Will not the Government accept that until they re-establish operational control over the use of the weapons they will not be believed if they claim to be in control of the fate of our own country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am surprised that the Government are not believed. After all, this is a situation which has been in existence for a very long time. It is right for me to end this exchange by repeating that the Government are aware that concern has been expressed about the effectiveness of these arrangements, but the Government are satisfied that the arrangements are effective.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Franks Report.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for a short period. During the adjournment, the Report stage of the Plant Varieties Bill and the Fishing Vessels (Temporary Financial Assistance) Scheme 1982 will be taken.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.- (The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Remuneration etc. of members of Mental Welfare Commission]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
(" (1) In subsection (2) of section 2 of the principal Act (which deals with the constitution of the Mental Welfare Commission of Scotland) for the words 'nine' and 'eleven' there shall be substituted the words "ten" and "twelve" respectively and in subsection (3) for the word "four" there shall be substituted the word "five".)
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple but important amendment, which is concerned with the Mental Welfare Commission of Scotland. When it was first established, the Mental Welfare Commission of Scotland was a very much smaller body, consisting of anything between seven and nine members. The commission was then enlarged and became a body consisting of between nine and 11 members. The amendment proposes that that number should again be changed and that the Mental Welfare Commission should consist of anything between 10 and 12 members.
The purpose of the Bill and of many of the other amendments to the Bill is to strengthen the hand of the
1290
Mental Welfare Commission, to give it more functions and to enable it to carry out more duties in respect of those suffering from mental illness and who, because of mental illness, are detained under its care in hospital. Even at the present time the commissioners have to exercise protective functions in respect of people who, by reason of mental disorder, are incapable of sufficiently protecting themselves; and they are given the task of inquiring into and taking action in respect of any case where there may be ill-treatment, deficiency in care or improper detention.
Now that we are giving the commissioners new functions within the Bill, I believe that the present commission is not adequate to perform its task. Indeed, the Government say that it is not, because one of the later amendments is that the commissioners may set up a committee which may be a committee of commissioners, and they may appoint someone from outside the commission to chair that committee. I would fancy that they would only be required to do that as a second best, where they could not do it themselves from within the commission.
The work of the commission is so important that we should not leave this matter to chance of that kind. I suggest that we increase the number of commissioners from nine to ten and have the possibility that the Secretary of State may further increase it, if he so desires, to 11 or 12. It is a matter of the importance of the work of the commission and the importance of the new duties we shall be giving the commission. I hope that this amendment will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I do so in preference to my own amendment, which follows. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I am concerned about the adequacy of the commission to discharge its duties. There is no doubt that the new legislation adds considerably to the duties and responsibilities of this important body. To give it the necessary increase in numbers will enable the commission to discharge its responsibilities sensibly, and to avoid the possibility of augmenting its resources from outside the commission, as may be necessary from time to time.
In my own amendment I am proposing that at least three members of the commission shall be women. The justification for this is that there are more women suffering from mental illness in Scotland than there are men, and I am concerned that women should be well represented on the commission. I am not sure whether the Equal Opportunities Commission takes care of adequate representation in the case of Government appointments, but I should be happy to be satisfied that the claims of women will not be overlooked by serving members of the commission. With that assurance I shall be happy to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Out of fairness to the noble Earl the Minister, I should explain to the Committee before he replies that in the last two lines of my amendment, which read,
"for the word 'four' there shall be substituted the word 'five'",

1291
I am increasing the size of the commission, and in this phrase I seek also to increase the size of the quorum. At present the quorum is four, and I suggest that, for a bigger commission, it should be five.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, puts me in something of a difficulty, if not on the spot, because what I was going to say to the Committee, and still intend to say, is that there are features of both amendments, Nos. 1 and 2, which the Government find attractive, but there are rather more features of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, than there are of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—that is, Amendment No. 1. What I shall do is say what it is that we find attractive about both amendments and then invite the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, to withdraw his amendment. I hope that we shall bring forward at Report stage an amendment which will commend itself to both noble Lords and to your Lordships' House.
I am very willing to accept that the minimum number of commissioners should be increased. There are at present 10 commissioners, including the chairman, and one place is temporarily vacant. A lower limit of 10 would not be unreasonable; but so far as a maximum is concerned, there I should go to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, because I should prefer to see the maximum limit removed rather than merely increased, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, would have it in his amendment. I quite agree that in view of the increased activity of the commission, and that such increased activity will be even greater in the future, a greater number of commissioners will certainly be required. I believe it is unnecessary to set a maximum limit. I feel that we should leave it to the commission and to the Secretary of State to decide from time to time how many commissioners are needed, without recommending the appointment of unacceptably large numbers.
Now I turn to the distaff side. These days, I do not believe that one has to prescribe a minimum number of women commissioners. Times have changed since the principal Act was passed in 1960, and it is accepted everywhere that women should be represented on a body such as the commission. I have no objection to an increase in the number in the way that is sought in Amendments Nos. 1 to 3; I anticipate that there will usually be more. I do not feel that it matters, and I shall be content to test the feeling of the Committee in this respect.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, would omit from subsection (2) the provision that commissioners who are medical practitioners are to be referred to as medical commissioners. I know very well that this stems from a number of amendments which he will probably move a little later. But obviously he will not necessarily expect the Government to smile on that particular part of his amendment.
Now I come to the last part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, which in effect proposes that subsection (3) of Section 2 of the principal Act should be amended so as to increase the
1292
number of commissioners constituting a quorum. That is quite reasonable and wholly acceptable. If the membership of the commission is to be increased then the quorum should also be increased. I should be quite happy to accept that part of Amendment No. 1.
Here, we have parts of both amendments which are eminently acceptable to the Government. I should like to take this matter away and to produce an amendment which I hope will be acceptable to your Lordships at Report stage. It seems to me that the only point between us at the moment is whether or not there should be a maximum. I would prefer to leave it to the good sense of the commission and the Secretary of State.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Earl the Minister has put his points very fairly. Remember, the present maximum is 11 and the present size of the commission is 10. If we accepted the first part of Amendment No. 2—that we should only put in a minimum and set no specific number as a maximum—it would simply mean that the Government could leave matters as they are. Judging by what the noble Earl said about a quorum, he could have the same number as we have at the present but with an increased quorum, which would not make very much sense. If the noble Earl is promising that, then, having accepted this increased quorum, as he says he is going to do, he ought to give a pledge that there will be more than 10 members.
I am all for trusting Secretaries of State, and that is the reason why I did not go into specifics about the number of women or the number of medical practitioners, or that there had to be an advocate with at least five years' experience. That should be sensibly left to the Secretary of State. I also want to see people who are not usually in this kind of run serving as commissioners; that they should not merely be consulted, because some of them might make very good commissioners. Some may come from voluntary organisations other than the sort of specialist categories included, but be qualified because of their long-term interest in the subject. That is why I want to see an increase.
I am prepared to accept from the Minister that he is inclined to the view that there should be an increase and that he is prepared to accept an increase in the quorum. I will not press him on that. I also accept that there should be no maximum. But I think he has to make his intentions a little clearer; otherwise, we could be no better off but in fact worse off, with a commission of the present size and a larger quorum.
The Earl of Mansfield: I thought it was implicit in what I said that, bearing in mind that the Bill is very much in embryonic form at Committee stage in your Lordships' House, the Government are quite flexible on the matter of numbers. I think that by conceding the principle of both amendments I have made it clear that it is the view of the Government that more commissioners will be needed. I think my only reaction to what the noble Lord has said is to say that what I am asking for is that there should be the maximum flexibility. I think we can leave it to the good sense of the Secretary of State, advised by his officials and, indeed, by the commission itself, to determine the number of commissioners there should be. If the noble Lord really wants me to write a lower

1293
limit of commissioners into the amendment I will give it thought, but I would have thought it was scarcely necessary.
Lord Ross of Marnock: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
(" ( ) For subsection (2) of section 2 of the principal Act there shall be substituted—
"The Mental Welfare Commission shall consist of no fewer than ten Commissioners (including at least three women) of whom one shall be Chairman, at least three shall be Medical Practitioners and one shall be a person who has been for a period of at least five years either a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a Solicitor).".")
The noble Lord said: In view of the assurances given by the Minister and his sympathetic response to my amendment, I look forward to his appropriate amendment at Report stage and beg leave not to move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.24 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
(" ( ) For subsection (4) of section 2 of the principal Act there shall be substituted—
"(4) The Commissioners including the Chairman shall be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State and shall hold and vacate office under the terms of the instrument under which they are appointed but may resign office by notice in writing to the Secretary of State save that no person shall hold the office for more than two terms of four years or the office of Chairman for more than eight years.".")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which refers to the turnover of members of the commission. I am concerned that in this particular area where we have changing situations, changing methods of treatment, changing attitudes, there should be some provision in the Bill for turnover of members of the commission. I am hoping in my amendment to bring this into line with most of the appointments made by the Scottish Office in respect of commissions of one kind and another. I am hopeful that the Minister will accept that as a reasonable proposition. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: When the Mental Welfare Commission was established in 1962, it was not unusual for members of bodies such as the commission to be appointed to hold office for a very long time indeed. Indeed, they were appointed to hold office until attaining the age of 70 years. Since 1973 the practice has been for members of the commission, like those of health boards and a good many other bodies, to be appointed for four-year terms of office. There are now only three members, including the chairman, who hold office under the previous arrangements, and all three are due to retire within the next three or four years. I do not see any merit in limiting the number of terms of office which may be served by either the chairman or any other member of the commission.
1294
If a member is not able to play a satisfactory part in the work of the commission, he or she will not be recommended for reappointment for a second term, let alone a third. On the other hand, if there is somebody who is dedicated and able, and who proves himself to be a valuable member of the commission and wants to continue to serve after two terms of office, it would, I suggest, be extremely wasteful to enforce his or her replacement by somebody else, who at the very least would be no better and might well not be able to contribute so much. I hope the noble Lord on reflection will agree that it would be preferable to continue with the present system whereby members of the commission, including the present chairman's successor, can be recommended for reappointment for successive terms while they remain interested and conscientious.
It is natural that the chairman and indeed the Secretary of State will wish to see changes made from time to time to bring fresh enthusiasm and interest to the commission, but I think it is quite unnecessary to limit tenure of office to ensure that that is done. I believe it is highly unlikely that in the future we shall find many people who are prepared to continue in office as long as the present chairman, Lord McDonald, who has given up a great deal of his time in the most selfless manner for no less than 17 years for no reward other than the satisfaction of fulfilling a very important job on behalf of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I do not think the noble Lord's amendment would do very much good, if any, and I think it could well harm the interests of those whom we all want to serve. I hope the noble Lord on reflection will not press the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Minister said there were three members left who had been appointed under the old régime prior to 1973, and that that included the chairman. What has been happening since 1973? Has the tendency been appointment for four years, and that may well be that as far as these post-1973 appointments are concerned? Has there been a greater rate of changeover since 1973? I do not think there is any actual term laid down in statute; it is a matter for the Secretary of State. I do not necessarily disagree with what has happened, knowing Lord McDonald and knowing what he has brought to the work of the commission. I think it would be quite wrong statutorily to rule somebody out because they have been there for eight years. I can think of chairmen of Forestry Commissions and things like that; they might grow with the term of office. When you apply that to some of the other offices, we would object to such a severe limitation. I think that, once again, we should leave it to the common sense of the Secretary of State to decide what is done. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me what the tendency has been since 1973. After all, it is nearly 10 years. Have any of those appointed since 1973 had more than two terms of four years?
The Earl of Selkirk: May I say that I agree generally with what my noble friend has said. I was a member of the General Board of Control; it was a long time ago and I have forgotten practically everything I ever did there. This is a pretty exacting job and this is a pretty complicated Bill. Perhaps I may say that I think

1295
possibly one lawyer is not enough. There are a very large number of highly complicated questions of law which are going to arise. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, suggests one advocate; I think that possibly there ought to be at least two, but I only mention that in passing.
This is going to be an exacting task and I believe it will be found difficult to find good people with adequate experience and adequate ability to hold the office for a long time. It is going to take up quite a lot of time. Even if they are paid reasonably, people engaged in law or business may find it difficult to give adequate time. Doctors may not find it too difficult because they can work it in with their normal functions. I think that, if we find people who can do it and who are competent to do it, we should not restrict too greatly the time that they can serve. There are a lot of complicated questions to be considered. There is a lot of travelling to be done. The extra work will take a great deal of time. It will take very nearly one-third of the time to fulfil the duties properly. I therefore support the view that my noble friend has suggested.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I do not propose to press the amendment, but I seriously take the view that as we appoint members to the health boards for a limited period we might look at the question of the terms of service in the commission. May I say that this is no reflection on the work of Lord McDonald or the work done by the commission members. The commission discharges its responsibilities well within the present remit. We are now changing its remit, extending its services and in the whole field of the treatment of mental illness there have been changes over a period. It is unfortunate if members of the commission sit on the commission for 17 or 20 years, as has been suggested. The chairman has held that office for 17 years. Members' attitudes tend to be more rigid and perhaps less receptive to new ideas and new organisation. In order to satisfy the need for some fresh influences in the commission I uphold the amendment. However, having said that, I do not propose to press it to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.31 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert:
(" .—(1) After subsection (4) of section 2 of the principal Act (which makes provision as to the appointment of Mental Welfare commissioners by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) Before making a recommendation under subsection (4) of this section the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned.".
(2) ").
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment which in many ways goes in with Amendment No. 5 and Amendment No. 6. But it may be convenient if I move my amendment merely formally. It is painfully obvious about what it is intended to do; in other words, that the Secretary of State is enjoined to consult those bodies which appear to him to be concerned before making his recommendations. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that formally to move an amendment and then to claim that it is an important amendment is a little too much. After all, this could mean nothing at all—
"the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned".
He is not required to consult at all. We should be given an indication of the type of bodies it is his intention so to consult.
The Earl of Mansfield: There are all manner of bodies which the Secretary of State consults before making a very large number of appointments, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, knows very well. Bodies can, although they have not in the past, include voluntary organisations; but there is no reason why consultation should not extend, for instance, to bodies such as the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped and the Scottish Association for Mental Health. It might well be that such bodies would want to put forward nominees and it would be up to the Secretary of State to consider them and place such reliance on them as he thought fit.
I do not think there is much more I can say, as the noble Lord knows. There are all manner of interested parties who would like to have a say before such appointments are made. In discussion of previous Bills, when the noble Lord and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box, the noble Lord has been quite concerned, as it were, to pin the Secretary of State down and this is perhaps a provision which he might have welcomed.
The Earl of Selkirk: Is this the first time that the commissioners have been appointed by Her Majesty?
The Earl of Mansfield: I am sorry. I did not catch what my noble friend said.
The Earl of Selkirk: Is this the first time that the health commissioners have been appointed by Her Majesty?
The Earl of Mansfield: No, I think not.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Minister of State has gone some way in that he managed to utter the words "voluntary organisation". He must appreciate that since 1960, when the principal Act was passed, there have been, fortunately, far more interest and, at times sadly, more concern about what has been happening in this field. It would be quite wrong if the Secretary of State limited his consultation to people in the legal and medical professions and to people with that kind of interest in the body. There are many parents who, as a result of concern about this matter, have built themselves up to a position where they know far more about it than many lawyers and many of the welfare commissioners of the past. I should like to have had a little more reassurance from the Minister that the Secretary of State will consider people connected with the voluntary organisations. I do not think for a minute that the Secretary of State will be asking for nominations. He does not do that in this kind of matter, any more than he does on many other aspects. Wide as the provision is, it lacks the detailed pledge

1297
that he will consider the voluntary agencies, who have done a tremendous amount of work and have been responsible for greater public interest in the work in the mental health field.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have an amendment following the noble Earl's amendment which relates to membership of the commission. Perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to say a word about that amendment, as it specifically relates to membership of the commission which is covered by this amendment. It becomes more specific, in so far as it includes the voluntary organisations. There is a suggestion, too, that the consumers of the service of mental care should perhaps be represented on this commission.
If we look at the commission in the past it has been largely restricted to the professional side, whereas a feeling has been expressed, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Mamock, that there are people outside the professions who have a contribution to make in this field, and who have a deep concern. In anticipation of this debate I spent some time last week looking at the voluntary services in the after-care treatment of the mentally ill. There is a great deal of public support, public sympathy and public concern which could be drawn upon and which could perhaps balance the purely professional element in the commission by voluntary organisations and former victims of mental illness. I hope that, while the Minister is not as specific as is my amendment, he might give assurances that he will draw from that wide spectrum of experience in making the appointments that he has in mind.
Lord Winstanley: While I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in what he said about his later amendment, I hope he will forgive me if I say that reference to that later amendment rather muddies the water in relation to this specific amendment. On that matter, before the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, had spoken, I was very much in agreement with what Lord Ross said about the desirability of full consultation with the voluntary bodies, but, in that argument, I was inclined to lean towards the arguments advanced by the noble Earl in relation to his limited amendment, which says:
"the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned".
At that stage, in so far as there was an argument, I was inclined to support the noble Earl in his amendment.
My support might be crystallised and solidified if I could briefly refer the noble Earl to an amendment of mine much later on the List, Amendment No. 104, which I am not moving or referring to. If the noble Earl will glance at Amendment No. 104, he will see that it seeks to amend a later subsection in order to make that subsection read precisely as the noble Earl's amendment now reads at this point in the Bill. I was merely suggesting that if the noble Earl can give me an assurance that he will look favourably on that later amendment, which seeks to do then precisely what he seeks to do now, perhaps I will think I was entirely right in deciding to support him.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am bound to say that I tried to keep the debate to my own amendment and not go to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, which I am not happy to accept, or, indeed, to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, which I shall be happy to accept—but a long time later, I fancy.
The fact is that I believe there should be maximum flexibility. I know that a great deal of informal consultation already takes place. That happens with a variety of bodies. I admit that this consultation has not previously extended to the major voluntary organisations, and I accept that it should do so in future. It is better that we should proceed on the basis that the Secretary of State will do what he considers to be right, which all Secretaries of State try to do (and I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, as I say this) rather than write into the statute, as it will be, the rather vague words which appear in Amendment No. 5.
I hope I have given an undertaking with reasonable graciousness. I believe that my amendment as drafted will be very much more satisfactory than anything in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Franks Report
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the report of the Falkland Islands Review Committee.
"The House will remember that I announced the setting up of the review committee in July 1982, after consultation with the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and leading Privy Counsellors in other parties. At that time I expressed the hope that the committee would be able to complete its work within six months.
"The committee has justified that hope. I received its report on 31st December 1982, and I am presenting it to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon. Copies are now available in the Vote Office."—
I should like to add here that copies are now available in the Printed Paper Office—
"I should like to express the Government's gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and to his colleagues for the amount of time and effort which they have devoted to producing such a thorough and comprehensive report in so short a time.

1299
"The report makes it clear that the committee was provided with all the papers relevant to its terms of reference, including a comprehensive collection of reports from the intelligence agencies. The committee's report contains a number of references to intelligence matters which would not in other circumstances be divulged. These references are essential for a full understanding of the matters into which the committee was asked to inquire, and the Government have agreed that the public interest requires that on this unique occasion the normal rule against public references to the intelligence organisation or to material derived from intelligence reports should be waived. The Government have, however, agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Franks, amendments to certain of the references to intelligence reports with a view to minimising potential damage to British intelligence interests. Lord Franks has authorised me to tell the House that he agrees that:
(1) All the references to intelligence reports included in the committee's report as submitted have been retained in the report as presented to Parliament, most of them without amendment;
(2) None of the amendments that have been made alters the sense, substance or emphasis of the reference to the intelligence report concerned, or removes anything of significance to the committee's account of the matters referred to it or to its findings and conclusions;
(3) Apart from those agreed amendments, no other deletions or amendments have been made to the committee's report as submitted.
"The report is unanimous and is signed by all the members of the committee without qualification. It falls into four chapters. The first gives an account of the dispute from 1965, when the issue was first brought formally to international attention by a Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, to May 1979. The second covers the period from May 1979 to 19th March 1982. The third deals with the fortnight from 19th March to 2nd April 1982 which included the South Georgia incident and led up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The fourth and final chapter deals with the way in which the Government discharged their responsibilities in the period leading up to the invasion. There are six annexes, the first of which comments on a number of specific assertions made by people who have spoken or written on the matters in question.
"In the fourth chapter of the report—that is, the one which deals with the way Government discharged their responsibilities—the committee notes a number of points where in its judgment different decisions might have been taken, fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might have been advantageous, and the machinery of Government could have been better used. This chapter defines and addresses itself to two crucial questions:
(1) Could the Government have foreseen the invasion of 2nd April 1982?
(2) Could the Government have prevented the invasion?
1300
"The committee emphasises that its report should be read as a whole. At this stage, therefore, I will do no more than quote the committee's conclusions on these two crucial questions.
"On the first question, whether the Government could have foreseen the invasion of 2nd April, the committee's conclusion is as follows:
'266. In the light of this evidence, we are satisfied that the Government did not have warning of the decision to invade. The evidence of the timing of the decision taken by the Junta shows that the Government not only did not, but could not, have had earlier warning. The invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2nd April could not have been foreseen.'
"I have quoted the whole of paragraph 266.
"On the second question, whether the Government could have prevented the invasion, the committee's conclusion contained in the final paragraph of the report is as follows:
'Against this background we have pointed out in this chapter where different decisions might have been taken, where fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might, in our opinion, have been advantageous, and where the machinery of Government could have been better used. But, if the British Government had acted differently in the ways we have indicated, it is impossible to judge what the impact on the Argentine Government or the implications for the course of events might have been. There is no reasonable basis for any suggestion—which would be purely hypothetical—that the invasion would have been prevented if the Government had acted in the ways indicated in our report. Taking account of these considerations, and of all the evidence we have received, we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta's decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2nd April 1982'.
"I have quoted in full the final paragraph of the report.
"Mr. Speaker, time will of course be found for an early debate, and that will be discussed through the usual channels. The Government will welcome an early opportunity of discussing the matters contained in the report more thoroughly than is possible this afternoon"
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and we also thank the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and his committee for their hard work over the past six months. We have not yet had an opportunity to study the report, which is long and detailed. In fact, we regret that we did not have the opportunity to have a good look at the report in advance of the Statement. The report has just been made available, as the noble Baroness said, and this creates some difficulty for us. Obviously, we shall need a few days to digest it. I am

1301
grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about a full debate at the earliest possible time. I hope that we shall be able to have that debate not later than some day next week.
I had not intended to say a great deal today because I have not had time to do more than skip through the report, but in view of the injunction mentioned in the Statement which has just been read by the noble Baroness, to read the report "as a whole", is it not wrong for the Statement to rely and concentrate on the conclusions alone? Is it not a fact that the report is also critical of a number of the actions of the Government over the last year or so—for example, the proposed defence cuts; the proposed sale of "Invincible" to Australia; the proposal to withdraw "Endurance"; and the attitude of the Government to the Falklanders in the British Nationality Act? All these neutralised any warnings given to the Argentine Government, and may have given them the impression that the British Government were not seriously concerned about the future of the Falklands. That is pretty well accepted throughout the country and it is why I say that to read the conclusions alone is a trifle misleading.
The Statement included a reference to paragraph 266; but again, is it not the case that the Government either misjudged or neglected the reports which were coming from the Argentine? I am referring not to intelligence reports but to public reports; namely, that some action would be taken in 1982 in relation to the Falklands or to the outlying islands. I refer to that because those two conclusions were included in the Statement. Can the noble Baroness tell the House—and this would be helpful in relation to the debate that we are to have, either next week or as soon as possible—how many meetings were held to discuss the Falklands, either in the Cabinet itself or in the appropriate Cabinet Committee, in the 12 or 15 months leading up to the crisis itself?
Finally, I assume that the Government accept responsibility for the deficiencies in the joint intelligence organisation which I understand is referred to in detail in the report. The noble Baroness will, I am sure, be prepared to accept that Ministers cannot detach themselves from the acts or omissions of civil servants, and that the consequences of anything they may do or any omission for which they are responsible, must be taken by the Prime Minister and her colleagues.
I shall not ask any further questions at this stage, but obviously I and all of those Members who will take part in the debate in due course will need to go into this full report in very great detail indeed.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, would like to thank the Leader of the House for repeating this obviously very important Statement. We would also like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Franks on producing this clearly intelligent and far-reaching report in the time laid down by the Government. It is clear also from the Statement that the conclusions of the report as quoted by the Prime Minister are satisfactory from the Government's point of view. The only point that immediately occurs to me is that if nobody in the Government is apparently to
1302
blame in any way for what occurred, why was it necessary for the former Foreign Secretary to resign on the issue? That is something which might well be explained to us in due course.
As for the rest, I agree very much with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said. We on these Benches at any rate can hardly be expected to make any intelligent comment on an important report before we have had the opportunity of reading it. It may be that, having done so, we shall discover in the general drift of the report matters for criticism of the present Government or perhaps of past Governments, if it comes to that, even though the conclusions as quoted by the Prime Minister do seem in themselves to exempt the Government at any rate—I do not speak of any other people—from blame.
I would very much back up what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said about the necessity for an early debate, and I hope that that can be arranged for next week or at any rate as soon as possible.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for what they have said about this Statement, and particularly to reiterate what we have said about our appreciation of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and his committee.
I should like to say something immediately about the proposals for a debate on this matter. I assure both noble Lords and the House that there will be an early opportunity for a full day's debate. I am not in a position today to announce exactly when this will be, but I can say that a debate next week is more than likely. As soon as the date has been fixed, and taking into account the arrangements in another place, either I or my noble friend the Chief Whip will come to the House later this week and make a business announcement on the matter. In view of that it would be far more appropriate to leave all the detailed discussion of this report until your Lordships have had an opportunity to read it and to consider the questions that they would like to ask.
I would, however, like to comment on three particular matters which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised. First, it is the usual practice to produce the report at the time when a Statement is being made. Secondly, the conclusions which I read out in the Statement are the conclusions obviously based on the premise which goes beforehand, and the history as I have already indicated of this matter is fully set out and it was part of the terms of reference of the committee itself. Finally, I am sure that it would be the wish of the whole House when we talk about Ministers and responsibility, to say how very pleased we are to see my noble friend Lord Carrington in his place today. I hope we can look forward to hearing him when this matter is fully debated later on.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while agreeing entirely with the noble Baroness that it would be stupid to go into any of the details of the report this afternoon, there is one public matter concerning the report about which I should like to ask her a simple

1303
and straightforward question. We know that this report has not been distributed to the press any more than it has been to Members of this House. Yet last weekend there were a considerable number of articles of great similarity all slanted in a particular direction. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any official from any department of the Government, any representative of any department of the Government, gave any briefing, official or unofficial, to any member of the press about this report before it was published?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot go any further than I have already indicated—of which I think all Members of your Lordships' House are aware—that copies of the report have been available to Members of your Lordships' House this afternoon. I would not wish to comment on press comments at the weekend, or indeed at any time leading up to the publication of this report.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that does not answer my question.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we on these Benches also are most grateful to the Government for having repeated this Statement? We accept that at the time when a paper of this kind is being made available there should be a Statement accompanying it, and in those circumstances it is, of course, impossible for any of us to have had an opportunity of reading the report as fully as we would have liked to do before commenting on the Statement.
Nevertheless, is the noble Baroness aware that if I were a member of a Government which had been subjected to an inquiry by such a distinguished body which had produced a unanimous report, I would be bound to draw some satisfaction from the conclusions which had been reported? It would be avoiding the truth if one did not face up to that preliminary point and it would cause some considerable satisfaction outside this country as well as in it. I can only repeat the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that not only are we delighted to find that there was apparently no reason for the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to resign, but that he is here to hear us say this and will no doubt wish to add his comments in the debate.
We are grateful to the Government for what they have done in making available intelligence reports to the committee, and I have noted very carefully what the report says about that. Nevertheless, perhaps I could ask the noble Baroness whether, so far as she is aware, there is any occasion on which the committee asked for intelligence information which the Government did not think it appropriate to let them have. When it comes to the point of the debate, would it be possible for the Government to be prepared to deal not only with the detailed points within this report but also with the part that foreign policy has played subsequent to the report?—that is to say, subsequent to the date of 2nd April, which would make the debate more of a whole debate and less limited than it would otherwise be if it had to concentrate merely on events which led up to 2nd April.
1304
As to other details, I agree with the noble Baroness and all the previous speakers that they are for the subsequent debate in which we shall look forward to taking part.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for what he has said, and I think that he has made some very important general comments on the report. I should like to emphasise to the House that the Government set up the inquiry on the terms of reference which, of course, were agreed with the Opposition parties and which include the background to the particular dispute. I should also like to emphasise that it is a unanimous report and I am quite certain that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who has had such great responsibilities over this whole crisis and borne them so well, must feel a great sense of satisfaction with the conclusion as it is set out in paragraph 339, which is quoted in full in the Statement.
On the particular point about which the noble Lord asked me concerning intelligence reports, I can confirm that all intelligence reports were made available. On his other point about the debate that will take place, I think that it would be appropriate that the debate should take place on the report, which, of course, does not deal with the conduct of the Falklands campaign itself or matters subsequent to it, but which is concerned with all matters before the Argentine invasion.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I preface my question to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House with a statement of the fact that she can in no way give any answer this afternoon apropos the leaks that have appeared at the weekend in British newspapers. Having listened to her Statement, they seem to be remarkably accurate. What is disturbing and distressing is that this remarkable anticipation of the Franks Report has now found its way into the newspapers of other nations before we in Great Britain in this Chamber could hear the Statement this afternoon. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she would consider—and it would be absolutely irresponsible of anyone to expect a reply this afternoon—the remarks that have been made by myself and my noble friend?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall of course read the report of the Statement and the questions and discussion which have taken place upon it, but I think it would be completely inappropriate to comment on leaks or comments which have appeared in the press at any time, because I do not think that this is in any sense relevant to the debate, which must take place in the proper forum—which is Parliament—when everyone has had time to study the report itself.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, could we not pay tribute to the press for intelligent forecasts?
Lord Foot: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that it is a little unfortunate that a report of this importance, running to only 105 pages, should cost the general public £6.10 net?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that this is one of those occasions when you are getting very good value for money.
I think it would be the wish of the House that we should return to the Committee proceedings.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
("( ) After subsection (4) of section 2 of the principal Act there shall be inserted—
"(4A) In making his recommendation pursuant to subsection (4) of this section the Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure that there are sufficient Commissioners for The Mental Welfare Commission to exercise their functions in accordance with section 4 of this Act and that the Commissioners are sufficiently representative of all bodies including relevant Voluntary Agencies as appears to him to be concerned.".")
The noble Lord said: I have already made some reference to this amendment, perhaps slightly out of order, but although I have had some assurances from the Minister in connection with the composition of the commission I should like once more to emphasise that in the past the commission has tended to be largely representative of professional people involved in this area, to the neglect or oversight of representation of the people who are affected by the treatment they receive under mental care.
Therefore, I suggested in a previous amendment that not only should the Mental Welfare Commission be strengthened by numbers, but that it should also be strengthened by way of the breadth of representation which should be on the commission, and particularly by representation of the patient who, in the last analysis, receives the care and treatment from the service and who might be considered as a possible member of the commission. It is fairly common now in the case of all commissions to represent the consumer interest, and perhaps it might commend itself to the Minister that in selecting the members of the commission he should pay attention to that particular source.
I beg to move my amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: I had hoped that I had given a fairly reasonable undertaking to the Committee in relation to my amendment, Amendment No. 4, which is in fact an alternative to the noble Lord's amendment but which, if I may say so, is a much more acceptable one. We realise and accept that there will perhaps have to be wider consultation than there has been in the past. As I said, there has been a good deal of informal consultation, and that takes place with a variety of bodies. It has not extended to the major voluntary organisations, and I think that in future it will have to do so.
I think we must ensure that they are consulted; and I have no doubt that, being aggressive—and I do not say that in an offensive sense—but being mindful of the people whose welfare they particularly want to
1306
represent and enhance, they will make it very plain when the matter of representation comes up that the commission is composed of people who would be agreeable as regards the voluntary bodies. I think it is better to do it as my Amendment No. 4 seeks to do it rather than to make the Secretary of State under a rather vague obligation as to which is "concerned", as in the last sentence of the noble Lord's amendment. But I do not think there is very much between us.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wonder whether I may briefly twist the arm of my noble friend? I am certain that he is aware that in the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill for England the voluntary bodies are not stipulated but that they are very much concerned. I happen to be the national chairman of a large voluntary body relating to hospitals in this country and indeed in Scotland, where we have a large representation of leagues of hospital friends. I have already received forms from the Minister in England asking if my organisation, or any similar voluntary bodies, would be prepared to serve on the commission in England. I would hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland would ensure that the voluntary bodies, which can give so much help in this direction, would certainly be consulted in Scotland.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are dealing with a very different point from that which we were dealing with in Lord Mansfield's amendment. His amendment was in relation to consultation. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consult everybody in the whole of Scotland for that matter, but this is a different matter, and, to that extent, it is a much more important matter, because it deals with the recommendations that the Secretary of State makes to Her Majesty for appointment as a commissioner. We are now dealing with the actual appointments, where Lord Taylor of Gryfe's amendment specifically states that the Secretary of State has to ensure that the commissioners,
"are sufficiently representative of all bodies including relevant Voluntary Agencies".
That is a very different matter. I do not think that it is vague. It is rightly specifically naming the voluntary bodies which are interested and have been interested, and many of which have been pressing for many of the kinds of amendment that we have in the Bill, and for some further amendment to strengthen the hand of the commission. I hope that the Minister will look at this again and not brush us off with a suggestion, "Well, if they are consulted that will be all right. They will be quite happy." Consultation is not enough. So far as this amendment is concerned, it is, before making a recommendation, ensuring that the commission will have some representatives of such bodies.
Lord Winstanley: I, too, hope that in the fullness of time we shall have an assurance that the commission itself will include commissioners—I do not say how many—of whom some at least will be capable of speaking on behalf of the different voluntary bodies. There are slight difficulties in the noble Lord's amendment, in that he merely requires that the Secretary of State shall ensure that,
"the Commissioners are sufficiently representative of all bodies".

1307
There are so many voluntary bodies, and it would be possible to read into this the right of each and every one of the voluntary bodies to have a representative on the commission. I do not think that that is the intention of the noble Lord. Were each voluntary body which is active in Scotland—and I know that they are very active indeed—to feel that as a result of this particular clause it was entitled to have a commissioner, then the commission would become an unwieldy body.
Merely leaving it to the Secretary of State to ensure that "the Commissioners are sufficiently representative of all bodies" is, again, a very open kind of statement. Who is to say what is sufficiently, and what is insufficiently? I hope that at some stage the noble Earl will be able to come back to the House with an amendment which will make it clear that the voice of the voluntary bodies will be heard among the commissioners, whereas I doubt that, without some kind of amendment, we really have an assurance that that will in fact be the case.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raises a point which goes a good deal further than what has so far been said so far as undertakings from me are concerned. I did not pursue the first part of the noble Lord's amendment because that was inherent in our first debate this afternoon, where I undertook to bring forward an amendment so far as the numbers and the composition of the body are concerned, which I hope will please everybody.
When I said that the Secretary of State, if this amendment was accepted, would be put under a rather vague duty or obligation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, took exception, I meant no more and no less than that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, agrees with me. If one is going to have this as part of a statute one must do better than use such phrases as, "sufficiently representative of all bodies … as appear to him to be concerned". There are an enormous number of organisations, some of which are professional and some of which represent workers in the industry, so to speak, and, not least, there are the relevant voluntary agencies. It would be an extremely difficult task for any Secretary of State to carry out that obligation.
I cannot say at this juncture that I am committing the Secretary of State to actually appointing some person representing voluntary agencies as a commissioner. It would be quite wrong of me to do so at this moment, because it might well be that the Secretary of State, having taken the advice of such bodies—and let us not forget that they sometimes tend to have violently differing views, and probably all of us can think of examples—is going to have to steer some sort of a middle course to try to appoint one or more people who will be as nearly acceptable to all of them as possible, but certainly acceptable to the greater number.
I cannot take it further than that. It would be dishonest of me to do so. I assure the Committee that the purpose of this clause in the Bill is to try to ensure that in future the commission is going to be large enough to be able to carry out its greatly enlarged role, and, obviously, representative enough of all shades of
1308
opinion and experience to command general acceptance in Scotland.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: May I encourage the Minister to read the last report of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, which is titled, Does the Patient Come First? They comment on this area of concern for the patient with some critical comments on the National Health Service, and related to their own particular activities. On page 9 of that report they say that it appears to the Mental Welfare Commission that within the National Health Service the interests of the employees are taking precedence over those of the patient, and they recommend that the concern for the patient should be adequately represented in the commission and in the body which is going to handle these new responsibilities.
I can see the weakness which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has mentioned in connection with my amendment, in that it would include in membership of the commission a large number of voluntary organisations. Perhaps there has been some unfortunate draftsmanship there. I am content to feel that the case has been made this afternoon for the inclusion of voluntary organisations who do tremendous, painstaking, difficult work in this area. The case has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, with some experience that field. I would certainly commend to the Minister that representation of some of these committed people in the voluntary organisations, who have a deep concern for the rights of the patient, should be present in the commission. I should be content to leave it there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 6, after first ("of) insert ("the said")
The noble Earl said: This drafting amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: Although this would make the simple change from "may" to "shall", I can recall some heated arguments on the subject, which has been debated often and at length; but I hope we shall not have that sort of debate today. What the Government are doing, strangely enough—and they are not doing it very well from the drafting point of view—is that, whereas at present the Secretary of State is empowered to pay the commissioners any remunerations and allowances, and so on (which everyone understood, and I do not think anybody ever complained about), we are now told:
"The Mental Welfare Commission may… pay to the said commissioners such remuneration",
and so on. While, seemingly, we have taken the Secretary of State out of it, we need have no fear; he is still there because the provision goes on to refer to such sums,
"as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine".
If the Secretary of State has determined the matter and has received the approval of the Treasury, why need we insert the word "may" in respect of the commission? Surely by that time we should say that they "shall" pay. The only possible reason not to say "shall" is that somebody will be working without payment, in which case that exception should be spelt out in the Bill. Normally, however, if the body receives the money from the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury, that money should be paid to the commissioners.
In any event, I do not like the new idea at all. I think it was better as it was. The Government have become confused, especially over some of the provisions we shall be discussing later about who pays what to whom, and who provides what. Whereas what we are discussing now applies only to commissioners, later we shall be discussing the same sort of dilemma in relation to staff, who are provided for by the Secretary of State and paid for by the commission.
I see no justification for the "may" in this provision. If it is included because of the exception I posed—the possibility of somebody working without payment; which has been known to happen—that should be provided for; otherwise, it gives far too big a discretion, not to the Secretary of State this time but to the commission, which could even bring pressure to bear on people by saying, "We expect you to work for nothing". I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: This is similar to a number of amendments which follow, but I will take this one on its own, as the noble Lord did. If accepted it would require, rather than enable, the Mental Welfare Commission to pay remuneration to commissioners and to make provision for pensions, and so on. The fact is that some commissioners may not wish to receive any remuneration. For example, Lord McDonald, the chairman, as a High Court judge, is prevented by virtue of his office from accepting remuneration. Thus, if "may" was changed to "shall" it would be forcing the commission to do what some of the commissioners would not want it to do.
It is essential that somebody has power to pay remuneration to the part-time commissioners and salaries to the full-time commissioners. At present, as the noble Lord correctly states, it is the Secretary of State who exercises this power. Clause 1 proposes that in future the commission should exercise the power, in line with other provisions which, in effect, will place in their own hands the management of their own financial affairs, which I think will be much more satisfactory.
Coming back to the wording of the amendment, it is better—indeed, it is undesirable and unnecessary to impose upon them a duty to pay people who do not wish to be paid or who are perhaps estopped from being paid—to leave the provision as it stands, rather than insert the word "shall", which would enjoin them to do what they would not want to do.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Secretary of State is still in command because the provision concludes with the words:
"as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine".
1310
It is only playing, therefore, to suggest that more power is being given to the commission in this matter; the position will be exactly as it was before from the commission's point of view.
In saying "may" instead of "shall" there is the danger that the commission may say, "We need not give any money because so-and-so does not take it, nor does so-and-so", and there will be pressure on some people to say, "In that case, we will not take it, either", when it may be they are in desperate need of the money. After all, there is nothing to prevent them taking the money and returning it: doing that would meet all the legal demands on a judge or anyone else. I am not entirely happy with the noble Earl's reply, but I shall not continue the argument here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert ("allowances").
The noble Lord said: The lines which the amendment propose to leave out read:
"The Mental Welfare Commission may … make provision for the payment of such pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of the said commissioners".
We have been told that they will be in office for about four years. We have also been told that a learned judge has been there for 17 years. He will be pensioned off as a judge, so I do not think he will be further pensioned off for a position in which he did not take any salary.
Will the commissioners all be full-time? If so, I can understand the justification for there being pensions. If not, may we be told when all this started? Remember, if they are only part-timers, that means they have other jobs and, according to the law of the land, those jobs must be superannuated, either in the Government or private sense. So when did we start this business of giving pensions or gratuities to part-time commissioners who may be in position for only four years?
We are more and more going over to this business where everything must be paid for; it is coming more and more into new towns and everything else, that, somehow or another, people are paid pensions for part-time work. I know it was not the case when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was chairman of the Hydro Board. This kind of thing did not apply then. I think he would just have shrugged his shoulders and said, "No. I do not want this kind of thing". I want to know the philosophy behind this and whether we can justify payment of a pension for, it may well be, a chairman who works part-time, with perhaps two-fifths of his time being applied to the duties. If he is there for only four years, how much pension does this represent? How is it justified? Allowances, yes. That is fair enough. But to go on to the question of gratuities and pensions is being a bit generous with public money. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I seem to have heard the noble Lord's argument before on this matter in some of the other legislation that we have dealt with in the last three and a half years or so. This is a perfectly ordinary power, a permissive power, that in future the commission which, as I have said, is responsible for its

1311
own finances, so to speak, can pay pensions, allowances and gratuities in respect of commissioners. The Treasury has requested that as a matter of course in future such provisions should be written into this sort of legislation even if, in fact, there are not to be or were not any full-time commissioners at the moment. It is a permissive power which takes effect for the present and in the future.
As we know, there are two full-time commissioners and there may in future be more. I think it is axiomatic to their taking the job that they should be entitled to remuneration, to salaries, if they are full-time and, when they retire, to pensions. I see no reason why this appointment should be an exception to the rule. There are also occasions when small pensions are paid to chairmen or members of bodies such as this who have put in enough time to become entitled to pensions, and I see no reason or any justification for removing the proposed power to provide for pensions to be made.
I want to stress to the Committee that the payment of remuneration and provision of pensions or allowances or gratuities are all subject to the approval of the Treasury, so that there is no question of there not being perfectly adequate financial control over any payments that the commission may propose to make. All that it is is an enabling power to behave—properly, some may think—in relation to its quasi-employees just like any other body of this nature.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, decides what course of action he will pursue with regard to his amendment, may I say a word which perhaps he might consider in relation to what has been said already. I share his view about certain aspects of the amendment that he has moved. I think that we can perhaps lean over rather too far in relation to paying people for the kind of duties which in the past were generally regarded as being jobs which people did because they wanted to do them. But there is another aspect of this matter which ought to be borne in mind, and particularly with a commission such as this, on which it is possible that perhaps we may want quite senior medical people or professional people who are in employment to take on the duties of a commissioner for, it might be, two days, three days or even four days a week. It might perhaps be necessary before a person could accept appointment as a chairman or as a member of the commission that that person should give up full-time, superannuated employment. I am aware of cases where this question has arisen, and I have a particular case in mind.
Where a person is persuaded to become a commissioner and, in order to do the work of a commissioner effectively, decides to retire from superannuated employment, then I think that it is perhaps appropriate for the period of his office and for this particular commission that he might benefit from this being superannuated, or pensionable in some form, to make up for the kind of sacrifice that he has made in order to take up the appointment. Those cases are rare, but I think they are less rare in relation to a commission of this kind which may require the services of professional people than they are in some of the other commissions about which the noble Lord may be thinking.
Lord Ross of Marnock: All these commissioners, since the year 1962 when the commission was set up, have been labouring under this situation; and I have never heard a single complaint. Not one! The position at the moment is that the Secretary of State may pay to the said commissioners such remuneration and allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine. If the question is one of full-time commissioners, then I can understand. In fact, where anyone is employing anybody at all under the laws of this country, there has to be superannuation. It might not be very much in the Government scheme, but that is part of the terms of employment.
I do not see why this should be extended. Although the Minister says that it is permissible, it is entirely up to the commission itself. I am not terribly happy about it. I want to know when this practice started. When did this generosity of the Treasury, who now insist that this should be common form in all this kind of legislation, begin? I might even have been Secretary of State myself when it started. I do not remember it. But it is as well to know. It may be that the information is not readily available. If we can return to this at a later stage, then for the moment I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. But I myself am happy that allowances are adequate to meet this case as they have been for the past 15 years or so.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Before calling Amendment No. 9 I should inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 10.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (7A).
The noble Lord said: I should like to know what all these things mean. I wish I had the time to go into the Library and sit for hours going through the provisions of the National Health Service Act 1978 as now applied to health boards, Section 85(1), (2A), (4) and (6), and so on. But why should I? We have a Minister here who is paid to enlighten us. Can he tell me exactly what these mean—these heads (a) and (b) of (7A)? I am interested particulary in the provisions about expenditure being met by the Secretary of State and Sections 85A(1) to (3), which impose financial duties. What are the financial duties? I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: Clause 1 inserts this new subsection (7A) into Section 2 of the principal Act. Subsection (7A) applies to the Mental Welfare Commission as they apply to a health board certain provisions of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 as amended by the Health Services Act 1980, and these provisions will enable the Secretary of State to meet the expenses of the commission and will oblige the commission to maintain accounts and observe other financial proprieties. Without these provisions, the commission will not be able to function because there will be no means of defraying their expenditure. What in fact this does is to regularise the funding of the commission.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is to say, the new funding of the commission?
The Earl of Mansfield: That is right.
Lord Ross of Marnock: So all this arises out of the changes that we have already made which are, to my mind, illusory in giving a greater measure of freedom and independence to the commission; whereas we have already discovered that they are independent and free so far as the Secretary of State will allow, and so far as the Treaury will allow the Secretary of State to allow them to allow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("to") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said; This is a minor drafting amendment. It is intended that subsections (1) and (3), which we find in Section 85A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, should apply to the Mental Welfare Commission in the same way that they apply to a health board, but not subsection (2) of Section 85A because this is wholly irrelevant. With that brief explanation, I beg to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This is the "may" and "shall" argument again. The Bill reads:
"The Secretary of State may provide for the Mental Welfare Commission such officers."
There is no question of these officers not being anxious to be paid, I am perfectly sure. There is no reason to my mind why the word "shall" should not be used. That will give some reassurance to the commission that they really are going to get something. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: There is a very good reason in this particular instance. If we take Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together, it would in effect mean that the Secretary of State would be under a duty to provide the commission with such accommodation, and so on, as they may require. If we equate the word "require" with demand, then the commission would be in a very enviable position indeed. I do not believe that any Secretary of State would want to be under that duty. In this particular instance, I say all the more strongly that this is a case where the Secretary of State should be provided with a power. He obviously must have power to enable him to provide the commission with accommodation. It is quite unnecessary for him to have to be under a duty to do so. I do not believe that any Secretary of State is likely to leave the commission without a roof over its head. Equally, he should not be placed under a duty by statute to have to give whatever they shall require of him.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Why does the Secretary of State need to do this under the new régime, the new power, the new freedoms that we are giving to the commission? Why do they not do it for themselves?
The Earl of Mansfield: They have to have the cash.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Of course, they have to have the cash. We have already been told that they are going to get the cash. They are going to get the cash from the Secretary of State. All this comes from the change which is quite unnecessarily being made by the Government. It does not end there. I have another amendment which I shall come to—I think we had better come to it right away, so I shall withdraw this amendment. We are getting nowhere, anyway, with "may" and "shall". I shall proceed to the next amendment with more hope.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 11, leave out from first ("such") to end of line.
The noble Lord said: This invites the Government to remove certain words from "such" to the end of the line. At the moment the provision reads:
"The Secretary of State may provide for the Mental Welfare Commission such officers and servants and such accommodation as the Commission may require".
I suggest that we leave out the officers and servants but we leave in the accommodation. Why do I suggest that? If we turn in our "hymn books" to page No. 3, with Clause 5 thereon, we find that it says that the Mental Welfare Commission may appoint officers and servants, and may make provision for the payment of remuneration to people appointed as officers and servants, and so on. What is this provision doing here? I think there has been some rather strange drafting. It certainly escapes me as to why this should be in the Bill twice. The Secretary of State is going to provide for the Mental Welfare Commission officers, servants and accommodation that are required. I leave "accommodation" in because that is not mentioned in Clause 5. Perhaps the Minister of State can give me a simple explanation that I have overlooked. But, for the life of me, I do not see it. If we are going to have Clause 5, what are we going to do with this one? Why is it needed at all? I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to reconcile the evident desire of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to extend the function of the commission with his apparent desire to render the body completely ineffective—and, worse than that, inactive. His Amendment No. 9 would have deprived the body of all financial support; this amendment taken with a desire to leave out Clause 5—which comes later—will deprive them of all their staff.
The purpose of this particular subsection (7B) is to enable the Secretary of State to continue to provide staff for the commission. The reason is simple: the commission has a small staff and it is desirable that any unforeseen reduction in that staff should not result in delay to the work which may be of very considerable importance to individual patients. The Scottish Office has a relatively large staff. It is in a position to help if the commission suddenly finds itself short-handed. So by retaining the Secretary of State's power to provide staff, what we do is enable the Scottish Office to provide immediate help without any formality if the commission should experience a temporary staffing crisis.

1315
I urge the noble Lord not to take such a suspicious view of what we are trying to do, which is to enable the commission financially and actually to stand on its feet, with the restraints appropriate to any such body, and at the same time to have the maximum flexibility; and we want to provide help in this particular instance if it should be needed.
The Earl of Selkirk: The point that the noble Earl has made is interesting. The Mental Welfare Commission will now be entirely independent. It will appoint its own staff in the ordinary way. This amendment allows the Secretary of State to give help temporarily to fill some immediate requirement, or possibly one that will arise in the immediate future until the commission has time and opportunity to appoint its own staff. The object is that the commission staff shall eventually be its own. Am I right in thinking that, or is there some other explanation?
The Earl of Mansfield: My noble friend is perfectly right. This is what I might describe as a "top-up" power to help out, so far as staff is concerned, in an emergency.
Lord Ross of Marnock: But why should that be so? Clause 5 of the Bill says that the Mental Welfare Commission may appoint, under (a) and (b), such persons,
"as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."
There is no need for any top-up. What is happening is simply that the Secretary of State still has to provide the money: that is really what the Minister of State is saying. He is making the change in the Bill so that it appears to everyone that the commission is now going to be its own master. It is not going to be its own master; and this is being done by "doctoring" a Bill, putting something in Clause 1 and then putting in a new Clause 5, when really what we ought to have had was a new Bill. We could then all have understood what was happening and the Minister of State would not have got tied up in a "topping-up" explanation which, to my mind, has no relation at all to what is being done here. If he had said to me that if I proceeded to destroy this particular subsection it would mean that the Secretary of State had no statutory power to give any money to the commission, then I could have understood it. But I do not know that the Scottish Office knows what it is at in respect of the draftsmanship of this.
The Scottish Office is not responsible. It was the Government who decided that they wanted only to have an amending Bill, and to anyone who has tried to amend this Bill I can say that it is very, very confusing indeed to try to amend it. I am sorry to say that I spent most of Christmas and New Year trying to do that—I have got to do something with my spare time. I am not going to do anything in the next fortnight, so let us have a return to this long after the Burns Supper period. These are simple facts and the Minister of State has tied himself into knots about the complexity of the draftsmanship. However, I will not worry him too much on this at the moment. I will return to it on a belated Report stage. It may well be that it will be Third Reading before we get round to this and get a
1316
suitable explanation from the Secretary of State. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and will leave him to reconsider it himself before the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should explain that Amendment No. 13 has taken the wrong place on the Marshalled List. It will be a pleasure postponed for the noble Lord until after Amendment No. 15, when I shall call it. It is an amendment, in effect, to Clause 2.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of Mental Welfare Commission in respect of persons suffering from mental disorder.
. For subsection (1) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be substituted—
"(1) It shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission generally to exercise protective functions in respect of persons individually or collectively who may by reason of mental disorder require care or be incapable of adequately protecting their persons or interests, and, where those persons are liable to be detained in hospital or subject to guardianship under the following provisions of this Act, their functions as aforesaid shall include in appropriate cases, the discharge of patients in accordance with the said provisions.".").
The noble Lord said: I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. As was said on Second Reading, it is a great pity that the opportunity was not taken to introduce a new Bill, because in amending this legislation we have to make references to other Bills. But here it is and, though I, like the noble Lord, Lord Ross, find some difficulty in the semantics of this Bill, I am concerned about Amendment No. 14 and consequently No. 15, which are not dealing with the "mays" or "shalls" of the Bill but are dealing with the responsibilities of the Mental Welfare Commission.
These amendments are key amendments, policy amendments, and have been prepared in consultation, if I may say so, with the Scottish Association for Mental Welfare, the Glasgow Association for Mental Health and the voluntary Link organisation, which is concerned with the after-care of people who have suffered from mental illness. The important thing about Amendment No. 14 is that, while the Mental Welfare Commission's responsibilities are clearly defined, we are suggesting here that they should have an additional responsibility. The fact is that the commission responds on the initiative of individuals who feel that they have a complaint in connection with wrongful detention or maltreatment, and so on. The important phrase in this amendment is this:
"It shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission generally to exercise protective functions in respect of persons individually or collectively who may by reason of mental disorder require care or be incapable of adequately protecting",
and so on. This means that it moves away from an individual's initiative for establishing complaints into the more general area of looking at policy for the care of the mentally ill.
I think that it is a key amendment and would be a useful addition to the responsibilities. It gives the

1317
Mental Welfare Commission a much broader responsibility to be concerned about those suffering from mental disorder, wherever they may be, without the patient initiating the contact by complaint. It is not limiting the commission to dealing solely with questions of release from compulsory detention. Consequently, if we were to take the opportunity of giving extended power to the commission, I think we could do it in this amendment and it would do a great deal to assure those who are concerned with mental welfare that the commission is going to be an important and a central body as regards policy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I understand the desire of the noble Lord to require the commission—I think I am more or less using the words he used—to move into a more general arena. The way the noble Lord intends to do it is by inserting the words "individually or collectively" and, secondly, the words "require care or" into the existing provision. I have to say to the noble Lord that the word "persons" is not made any more general by adding these words "individually or collectively". The expression,
"persons who may by reason of mental disorder be incapable of adequately protecting their persons or interests",
does embrace all those who require care. In other words, what I am saying to the noble Lord is that, if he thinks that by the insertion of these words into the Bill or into the Act he is transferring or enlarging the commission's attentions to classes of person rather than to individuals, then I have to tell him that these words are ineffective and unnecessary to achieve that purpose. No doubt this will be discussed in connection with the next amendment No. 15 and I do not want to anticipate that debate: nor do I want to anticipate my own amendment, which is No. 18 and which I think meets the aim of the noble Lord rather more effectively. However, as I say, we shall come to that shortly.
So persons who are incapable, by reason of mental disorder, of adequately protecting their persons or interests certainly include persons who require care. It is a wider expression. There may be people who could not be described as needing care who would, nevertheless, be incapable of adequately protecting their interests. So, as I say, the additional words do not broaden the scope of the existing provision.
The terms, as they exist at the moment, in Section 4(1) have never prevented the Mental Welfare Commission from exercising their protective functions in respect of groups of patients, rather than individuals. I think that we can in other ways ensure that the commission are not inhibited in raising wider issues on behalf of patients in general, which is a somewhat different matter. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that, in many ways, I am sympathetic to what he seeks to achieve. But I do not think that the way in which he seeks to achieve it is particularly effective and I believe we can do rather better in the later amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said. It is frightfully difficult to find out what this Bill covers. I have been more lucky, perhaps, in that I have not succeeded in getting a copy of the 1960 Act, but it is
1318
extremely difficult for me to follow this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has made a number of points which we must all feel are right. This is the sort of thing which the Mental Welfare Commission should be able to do. My noble friend has told us—and I have to accept this—that the amendment is unnecessary and that this point is covered by different words in other places. Am I right in that? As I understand it, it is the job of the commission to protect their persons. Is this properly covered, or do words which are at least in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has suggested, need to be incorporated at some point? I cannot follow closely enough either this Bill or the principal Act to be sure about that, and if my noble friend could give an assurance I should be very grateful.
The Earl of Mansfield: I sympathise with my noble friend. This method of textual amendment of previous Acts is not one which means that one can pick up the Bill and immediately understand what the Government are trying to do. What I said to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was that, so far as the powers and functions are concerned, the Mental Welfare Commission can already do what he seeks to allow them to do by virtue of the amendment. They are perfectly capable of doing that, as the original Section 4(1) stands.
But what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, seeks to do—and I have no doubt that we shall come to it in later amendments—is to widen the scope of the commission's activities. I see him nodding. As I have said, that is something for which I have a certain sympathy. But there is a Government amendment, Amendment No. 18. It would not help our deliberations to start talking about it now, but a casual look at that amendment shows that it sets out the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission in a way which I say will achieve what the noble Lord wants to achieve, in a way which is better than trying to write into the Bill, in a perfectly praiseworthy manner, what the commission are not stopped from doing already.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Surely, the question is whether or not they are doing it. The feeling is abroad—and we should like to be corrected on this—that the commission are a very passive organisation, that they sit and wait for complaints and that they are not the kind of dynamic organisation which should be improving the whole care and attention that is being paid to people who are suffering from mental illness. That is why we hoped that we would get a different Bill, a new Bill and a Bill in advance of what is being done, instead of this jogging amendment Bill which nobody can understand without a great deal of trouble. That is because, even if you have available the original Act, you discover that that has been amended three or four times.
I am sure that the Public Bill Office must be furious with me for having sent down an amendment, for then having sent down an amending amendment and for them 'phoning down to amend the amending amendment, in order to get it right. With all due respect, if we are to be able to do the job which the House of Lords must do, we must have the wherewithal to do it. We are not even provided with an amended principal Act, in order that we can readily

1319
understand. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would have welcomed something like that. He has asked time and time again that we should be provided with this kind of basic information, in order to be able to do the job of the House of Lords. The House of Lords inflates its importance by saying that we are doing our job. But we are not doing it; if we cannot understand the Bill, then we cannot amend it. Possibly, this also applies to another place as well. If mystification is the purpose of the Government, then they are succeeding.
What we are concerned with is, first, strengthening the commission and, secondly, ensuring that they carry out their functions. Protection for people suffering from mental illness within the community is not provided in all cases. It is not entirely the task of the commission to do that, because there are other authorities. But unless the commission are empowered to ensure that that is done—and health authorities and local authorities are also involved—then the task will never be done. I think that that is the main concern of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
It is a very serious matter, when we have 23,000 people—I do not know how many more there will be within the next month—who are dependent on the kind of protection and care which they get through the principal Act, as now amended. The Minister should appreciate that what we are saying is that the patient should come first, whether he is in hospital or outside. I am more concerned in respect of the commission's functions and responsibilities as regards people who are not detained in hospital, and I do not think that this function is being carried out properly, either by the commission or by local authorities.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was out of the Chamber at the beginning of my original discourse and I shall not weary the Committee with a repeat of it. But one must get straight, if one can, the fact that there are two aspects to this question. First, there are the powers of the commission and, secondly, there is the question of their duty and how it is that they shall be enjoined, so far as a statute can enjoin a body such as this, to carry out that duty. What I have said, so far as Amendment No. 14 is concerned, is that the words which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, seeks to insert into the Bill will not give the commission any new powers over and above those which they already possess. Indeed, they can do everything which is, in effect, implied by the words in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. So that, so far as the legalities are concerned, the amendment is not advancing us one whit.
I turn now to what I know is the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and, possibly, my noble friend Lord Selkirk. They want to see to it that the commission play a rather larger part than they have played up till now. I hope noble Lords agree when we come to Amendment No. 18, which is a Government amendment, that we are going some way to doing what they want. But as regards this amendment—and I do not say this offensively—the words are quite pointless.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: In view of the fact that we are to consider Government Amendment No. 18, which deals with this matter, at this stage I am prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 14. I hope that the points made will be taken care of, as the Minister assures us they will, in the amendment which he is to move. I beg leave, therefore, to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Duties of Mental Welfare Commission.
For subsection (2) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be substituted—
"(2) In the exercise of their functions as aforesaid and without prejudice to the generalities of these it shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission:

(a) to ascertain any case where it appears to them that there may be ill treatment, deficiency in care or treatment, or improper detention of any person who may be suffering from mental disorder, or where the property of any such person may by reason of his mental disorder, be exposed to loss or damage, and to act in accordance with its duties and requirements under subsections (c) and (d) of section 4.

(b) to visit regularly, and as often as they may think appropriate, patients who are liable to be detained in a hospital or who are subject to guardianship and in the case of patients liable to be detained in a hospital, so to visit each of them at least once every' three years and on any such visit to afford an opportunity, on request, for private interview to any such patient as aforesaid or, where the patient is in a hospital to any other patient in that hospital.

(c) to bring to the attention of any Board of Management or of any Local Authority the facts of any case in which in the opinion of the Mental Welfare Commission it is desirable for the Board of Management of the Local Authority to exercise any of the functions of that Board or of that Authority to secure the welfare of any patient suffering from mental disorder by

(i) preventing his ill-treatment.

(ii) remedying any deficiency in his care or treatment.

(iii) terminating his improper detention, or

(iv) preventing or redressing loss or damage to his property.

(d) to bring to the attention of any Board of Management, Local Authority, Local Health Authority, or other body, any matter in which, in the opinion of the Mental Welfare Commission, that Local Authority, Board of Management or other body might exercise any of its functions to promote the welfare of persons suffering from mental disorder".").

The noble Lord said: In so far as it extends the responsibilities of the Mental Welfare Commission, Amendment No. 15 develops the argument which I advanced on Amendment No. 14. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, the commission tends to be a rather passive organisation, apart from the fact that it responds to individual complaints on discharge of maltreatment and so on. Because, by tradition, the commission has been rather circumscribed, apart from the law on the matter, it does not take the positive action which is called for in any new Bill dealing with the care of the mentally ill. The proposed Amendment No. 15 tries to give it a much more positive impact.
The key words in the amendment are that it shall be the duty of the commission in the exercise of its functions to ascertain any case where it appears to it

1321
that there may be ill-treatment, deficiency in care, and so on. It will not wait until a patient applies. It will try to ascertain where adequate care is not being provided. This does not mean that it will go and look at patients in hospital or visit hospitals which care for the mentally ill. It may try to ascertain where there is a need by going to places like model lodging houses in Glasgow to ascertain whether there is a need for treatment of people who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances but who have never heard of the Mental Welfare Commission.
The amendment provides for much more extended and substantial responsibilities for the Mental Welfare Commission. First, it would give it the duty to seek out or to ascertain. It would give it the power to fund research into how far the mentally ill are being cared for. It might wish to find out how many people are taking advantage of the Mental Welfare Commission facilities and how many have not heard about it. It would have a monitoring and advisory role in connection with the policy of care for the mentally sick. For that reason it would have the additional responsibility of drawing attention to local authorities which perhaps make inadequate provision for the care of the mentally ill. These broad responsibilities are necessary in order to make the Mental Welfare Commission a positive and an important body for the care of the mentally ill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I spent some time over Christmas trying, though with great difficulty, to prepare amendments to the Bill. At the same time, I spent a good deal of time with some of the people who are engaged in caring for the mentally sick. It is a great national problem in Scotland. Indeed, it is a much bigger problem in Scotland than it is in England. In certain areas of medicine we have been able to pioneer new techniques. The original Act was a pioneering Act. I suggest to the Government that in this case they have a chance to lay down responsibilities which will make the commission a powerful, important and dynamic force in the treatment of the mentally sick in Scotland. I move this amendment with, I hope, some conviction.
Lord Lyell: I am sure your Lordships will have listened with very great interest to the eloquent moving of his amendment, and the principles which lie behind it, by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and all your Lordships that the Government are very willing to accept in part—and I stress "in part"—the principle of Amendment No. 15. However, may I draw the attention of the Committee to new paragraph (d) of the amendment? Your Lordships will see that this amendment would substitute a new subsection (2) for subsection (2) of Section 4. The effect of paragraph (d) would be to require the Mental Welfare Commission to draw the attention of various bodies to the matters which would affect the interests of persons suffering from mental disorder.
May I draw the attention of your Lordships, and especially the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to Amendment No. 18, to which I shall speak later? Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 18 proposes that a new subsection (6) should be substituted for subsection (6) of Section 4. It would
1322
have the same effect as the new paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 15. But there is one part of Amendment No. 15 which is not reflected in the Government amendment. I refer to the amended text of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) in Section 4. The commission's present duty is to inquire into any case which comes to its attention where there may be ill-treatment, neglect or something of that kind. The amendment would make it the duty of the commission to ascertain any such case and then to act in accordance with its duties under the other provisions of Section 4.
I assure the Committee that the alterations suggested by Amendment No. 15 would have no real effect other than to cause a certain amount of confusion. The duty of the commission under paragraph (a) is properly expressed as a duty to make inquiry. A case might come to its attention in which it would be bound to pursue its inquiry until it was satisfied as to the outcome. At one extreme the inquiry may consist of such simple matters as a telephone call, or a visit by an officer of the commission or by a commissioner. At the other extreme it may consist of a formal inquiry under the powers which are set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which your Lordships will find on page 41 of the Bill. Certainly it is the duty of the commission to establish whether there is any case to be answered. A criminal charge case would be referred by the commission to the procurator-fiscal.
At this stage I agree to consider the implication of the words, "to ascertain any case". I shall certainly take that point on board. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will be content with the acceptance in principle of this part of the amendment which he has moved.
The Earl of Selkirk: As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—I have great sympathy for his point of view—in his amendment he is putting a clear duty on the Mental Welfare Commission. He says that it shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission to ascertain. As far as I can see in Amendment No. 18, there is a duty to advise the Secretary of State but there is no clear duty to ascertain. That seems to be the difference. Could this be considered at another stage? I believe that the noble Lord is right in that the intention of Amendment No. 18 is much the same—but I am not clear that it is a negative action, rather than a positive action, which is what the noble Lord is trying to emphasise.
Lord Lyell: I hope that my noble friend will accept that we have agreed to consider this matter—the question of ascertainment—which has been raised. I am not clear about the negative or positive aspects raised by my noble friend as I consider that Amendment No. 18 will place a duty on the commission to advise the Secretary of State and to bring certain factors to his attention. I hope that before the commission carried out either of these two duties, they would certainly ascertain all the factors which lay in the particular case. I will give an undertaking that we will consider this matter of ascertainment raised in Amendment No. 15. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will accept that. We take on board the

1323
principle of Amendment No. 15, but we believe that this object can be achieved by Amendment No. 18.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I accept the noble Lord's assurance that the Government will look at the positive functions of the commission, but the noble Lord has not replied on the more general functions of the commission in its duties to conduct research or ascertain and monitor the performance of local authorities and other bodies in this area. I am not sure that Amendment No. 18 covers this point, but I await with interest the statement on Amendment No. 18 and will accept the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in respect of the introduction of responsibility for ascertainment being a function of the commission.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 13, at beginning insert—
("(1) In subsections (1) and (2)(b) of section 4 of the principal Act references to "guardianship" shall be omitted.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment may strike some people as being rather curious, and I am the first to admit that it does not do what I would like it to do. Its function is to raise a subject which has been raised both publicly and privately by the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and by the Scottish Association for Mental Health: the value of the whole question of guardianship with regard to mental health. In the Second Reading debate the figures were quoted showing those in Scotland who are subject to this type of guardianship, and they are remarkably few, which shows that there is less and less resort to guardianship.
Guardianship of this kind means the appointment of guardians who virtually take control of the comings and goings of a person. There is considerable encroachment on their liberty. I believe it is really regarded as an alternative to better community care, and as such has not really succeeded. There is an element of the whole ideology of compulsion which is repugnant to many people. The view is not that guardianship should be dropped and nothing else done. This worries certain people, such as elderly people with children who have some mental illness. They want a measure of reassurance about what will happen to their children when they are no longer around. Some are comforted by guardianship, but that is only a second best. They cannot be terribly reassured by that.
What we want is a much more specific type of community care which would give real reassurance in these cases. The same applies in respect of the Scottish Association for Mental Health. They are not aware of guardianship being used in respect of mental illness and would rather see it dropped from the Bill. I am not going that far, but this amendment gives the Government an opportunity to answer some of the points which have been made. Let the Government not think that I am out to destroy the Bill; they have almost done that themselves by its incomprehensibility. The reason is the nature of the Bill. This is a probing amendment and I hope that there will be a reasonable answer to the probing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: Subsection (1) of Section 4
1324
requires the Mental Welfare Commission generally to exercise protective functions in respect of mentally disordered persons, and provides that, where such persons are liable to be detained in hospital or are subject to guardianship, the commission's functions include the discharge of such persons. Removing the reference to guardianship from this provision would mean that the commission would have no general duty to exercise protective functions in respect of persons under guardianship. The duty to discharge persons from guardianship in appropriate cases would also be removed, but this would not matter because the reference to discharge in Section 4 is just a forward reference to the specific duty to discharge contained in Section 43.
Subsection (2)(b) requires the commission to visit persons who are subject to detention in hospital or guardianship, and there may seem to be some merit in removing the reference to guardianship from this provision. Persons under guardianship will be subject to far less restriction of their freedom than persons detained in hospital. However, the duty to visit means that the commission must not only be accessible to such persons but must also take periodic steps to maintain direct contact. This ensures that the commission will have first hand knowledge of each patient.
Taking the two references separately, removal of the first would exclude patients under guardianship from the general protective functions of the Mental Welfare Commission, and I can see no good reason for doing this. Although a patient subject to guardianship will not be subject to the same degree of restriction as one detained in hospital, he will, because of his mental disorder, be subject to some interference with his personal liberty. As such, it is right that such a person should come within the ambit of the Mental Welfare Commission—and we are talking about extending the functions of the commission.
So far as the second part of it is concerned, I would have thought it better, and indeed for the benefit of the patient, that the commission should continue to have a duty to maintain direct contact at intervals and to have first-hand knowledge of the patient's circumstances. So I do not think that in this case the civil liberty argument really applies very much.
I have to say that guardianship is not very much used at present. It no longer has the place in the care of mentally handicapped persons which it once occupied and is not regarded as having much relevance for the mentally ill. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will know that there is a considerable division between some of the voluntary bodies as to the uses of guardianship in relation to the mentally ill, and more especially the mentally handicapped. For instance, the Scottish Association for Mental Health takes a diametrically opposite view from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I explained that I was concerned about the implications of this not really in respect of the Mental Welfare Commission, but I think that if there has to be guardianship the functions of the Mental Welfare Commission should comprehend those functions covered by guardianship. What I was trying to get from the Government was an opinion about the merits and value of guardianship at all in the present day. That the noble Earl said it was very little

1325
used is in itself is a condemnation of carrying it on. I appreciate that to get the fundamental argument I should have referred back to some other Act. If we get through the next fortnight, toasting the haggis, and all the rest of it, I will have a look and find that other Act so that we can get down to the argument. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Duty of Mental Welfare Commission to visit patients]:
5.32 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("subsection (2)(b) of").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together. I may refer to other amendments which are also bound up with these amendments; I may make passing reference to Amendments Nos. 19 and 23. I hope that will not draw in the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, nor indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ross, if they would not wish to come to those at this stage, but I hope they will forgive me touching on the fringes of those two amendments.
Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18, which are bound up in one way or another with Amendment No. 15, as well as the fringe aspects of Nos. 19 and 23, seem to be rather a complex set of factors. I hope the purpose of the Government's amendments will be plain enough to your Lordships and, above all, to the two experts who have been speaking this afternoon, Lord Taylor and Lord Ross. I would hope that these three amendments will be acceptable to your Lordships and to the two noble Lords, whose objectives we hope they meet.
The three amendments, and indeed the replacement of Clause 3, seek to do two things. The first objective of these amendments is to combine in one clause all the amendments which relate to the duties of the Mental Welfare Commission. These are set out in subsections (1) to (6) of Section 4 of the principal Act. Thus we will find that the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill before us will be combined with two new provisions. The second objective, and indeed the purpose of the two new provisions, is to reflect the Government's acceptance in principle of certain aspects of Amendment No. 15 and of those we shall be considering, Nos. 19 and 23. I mentioned earlier the way in which the new subsection (6) in Amendment No. 18 will meet the aims of part of Amendment No. 15, which was spoken to earlier by Lord Taylor.
If I may draw your Lordships' attention to the new subsection (6A), this will impose on the Mental Welfare Commission a duty to publish a report on their activities every two years, beginning in the year 1985. This differs from Amendments Nos. 19 and 23 in that our amendment sets a date for the first report and it requires two-yearly reports rather than annual reports. I think it would be sensible to allow the commission time to adjust to the many changes which will be made by this Bill before requiring them to publish their first report under this provision. Also, we would do well to consider that for so small a body as the commission a requirement to publish an annual
1326
report would be unduly onerous and would divert a disproportionate amount of energy from their primary functions. The commission have of their own accord published reports at intervals of approximately five years. The Government accept that more frequent reports would be desirable. I hope your Lordships would accept that a report every two years would be a reasonable compromise. With that, I beg to move the amendments.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This amendment, instead of giving us annual report, as I understand it gives us a report every two years. I am not entirely satisfied that this is right. Most bodies report annually. If it is a matter of giving time to the commission to get into the way of the amended Act, as it will be, they are not going to start until 1985, and that is pretty generous to them. But then, every second year thereafter I cannot accept; I do not think that is right. We are coming to the further amendment to be considered. If we pass this amendment, that kills the debate on an annual report. If we decide it is going to be a report every two years, we cannot then discuss whether it should be an annual report. So we have to discuss this now.
I see no justification for accepting this idea. I have no objection to the rest of Amendment No. 18; I am sorry that the Minister did not speak about it. What is the real change in subsections (6A) and (6B)? I think that is worth talking about, because there was nothing like this in the original Act. The only thing in the original Act, so far as I recollect, is that it was the duty of the commission to advise the Secretary of State on any matter under the Act that he may refer to them, and to bring to his attention any other matter of which, in the opinion of the commission, he ought to be apprised. Here we have a reference to the Mental Welfare Commission with respect to matters referred to them, not just by the Secretary of State but by the health board and the local authority. This is a considerable advance. I am surprised that the Minister did not shout it from the housetops because a lot of people will be very pleased to see it. We read:
"to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State, a Health Board, a local authority or any other body any matter concerning the welfare of any persons who are suffering from mental disorder which the Commission consider ought to be brought to his or their attention."
That is a tremendous advance. However, I did not quite gather that from the speech that the noble Lord made from the Government Bench. This is a breakthrough. It is a breakthrough in that we shall have a report every two years. The Minister will have a record of the reports given by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland from 1962 onwards. Those reports have been very spasmodic indeed. This is an advance, but to my mind it is not good enough.
It is a great pity that we could not have broken these matters into two parts. I would not like to vote against the whole clause. Probably the best idea would be to accept it as it is and then to put down an amendment to the Government amendment when we come to the next stage of the Bill. This is an advance. The Government are going the right way. I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill they will decide whether they can go the whole way towards an annual report rather than a report every two years. I do not think that

1327
there is an argument in favour of a report every two years.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I support the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, because Amendment No. 19 in my name requires an annual report. If we pass the Government amendment now I am not sure what happens to Amendment No. 19 in which an annual report is called for. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I think the important item in the Government's amendment is not the annual report, though that is important, but the mere fact that the Government have in the amendment responded to some of the suggestions that have been proposed in earlier amendments and to some of the representations that have been made by the Scottish Association for Mental Health and other bodies. It is an indication which we very much welcome.
When it comes to the annual report, I am surprised that the Minister said that preparing an annual report would take up management time. Under the Companies Act companies have to prepare annual reports. Even in Government service and in the commissions over which the Secretary of State for Scotland presides annual reports are called for. I seem to recall regularly producing an annual report on the Forestry Commission for the Minister. It was a good thing because in an annual report one has to assess how one has done in the previous year. It then became the subject of public debate, of press comment and discussion in the Houses of Parliament.
If I may I will give the record of the Mental Welfare Commission to date. In 1972 it published a report on its work from 1962 to 1972—a 10-year period of duty. Then, it published another report in 1971 and a further report in 1981. It is little wonder that the people who should have access to the Mental Welfare Commission are hardly aware of its existence. I suggest that the annual report is useful not only to enable the commission to judge its work for the past 12 months, but to enable Ministers to monitor its work for the past 12 months, and it will enable the public and the press to comment on an annual report. For all these reasons I regard an annual report as a useful thing. It enables the voluntary bodies, too, to check on the activities of the Mental Welfare Commission. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I press the Minister to look again at the question of an annual report from his new, powerful, beefed-up commission and let us tell the world a little about what it is doing with its new remit, its new powers. I hope the Minister will respond.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): In view of the wide range covered by the three amendments, and the fact that exception is taken to certain parts of them, the Minister would be well advised to move them separately.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 15, after ("Commission)") insert ("—(a) in subsection (2)(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("; and
(b) for subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
" (6) It shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission—

(a) to advise the Secretary' of State, a Health Board or a local authority on any matter arising out of this Act which has been referred to the commission by the Secretary of State, the Health Board, or the local authority, as the case my be; and

(b) to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State, a Health Board, a local authority or any other body any matter concerning the welfare of any persons who are suffering from mental disorder which the Commission consider ought to be brought to his or their attention.

(6A) The Mental Welfare Commission shall in 1985 and in every second year thereafter publish a report on their activities; and copies of each such report shall be submitted by the Commission to the Secretary of State who shall lay copies before Parliament.
(6B) Where, in the course of carrying out any of their functions, the Mental Welfare Commission form the opinion that any patient who is—

(a) liable to be detained in a hospital; and

(b) either a restricted patient within the meaning section 60A of this Act or a person to whom section 60E of this Act applies

should be discharged, it shall be their duty to recommend accordingly to the Secretary of State. ".")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 18A:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 4 of principal Act.
(" . Section 4 of the principal Act shall be amended by omitting the words "a medical commissioner or "in subsections (3), (4) and (5).")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not simply a matter of semantics. It is an important amendment. When the Government appoint the commission, the commissioners are equal in status as commissioners and therfore to differentiate between the medical commissioners and the other commissioners is not desirable. Similarly, in company law, one does not differentiate between the professionals on the board and the non-executive board members. The whole board has a total responsibility just as the commissioners have a total responsibility. Therefore, they should be referred to as "commissioners" without this professional distinction, which I do not think is desirable. The commission will employ its own professional advisers and consultants from outside as the board may require, but it is the responsibility of the board to stand above that as a central organisation which will assess the work being carried out in its name. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has taken me slightly by surprise because I am bound to say that I read his amendment, which is now Amendment No. 18A, with Amendment No. 22 and concluded that the object of the exercise, so far as the noble Lord is concerned, was to exclude medical commissioners from the commission; in other words, to have what I might call a lay commission. That is not his desire. I will be perfectly frank with the Committee.

1329
I am not sure what the implications would be of omitting from the statute the words in Amendment No. 18A. It would seem to me that it might bar the appointment of medical commissioners. If I may, I will take it away and think about it. I am rootedly opposed to any idea that there should not continue to be medical commissioners as there are now, but I do not think the noble Lord is at odds with me about that. I will take it away and consider it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 18B:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of Mental Welfare Commission to report on local authority arrangements for care of mentally ill persons.
. In subsection (6) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be added at the end "and the Mental Welfare Commission shall report to the Secretary of State within eighteen months of the passing of the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1983 on the adequacy or otherwise of the arrangements made under section 7 of this Act for the care of persons who are or have been suffering from mental illness."
The noble Lord said: This is a really important amendment and a very thoughtful one, too. One of the linchpins of the care and protection of the people suffering from mental illness is that local authorities have been empowered, authorised or required to make arrangements under Section 27(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, which deals purely and simply with the functions of local health authorities in respect of the prevention of illness, care and after-care or mental illness. Nothing could be finer when one reads the 1960 Act. Section 7(1) refers to:
"the provision, equipment and maintenance of residential accommodation, and the care of persons for the time being resident in accommodation so provided:

(b) the appointment of officers …

(d) the provision of any ancillary or supplementary services …

(f) the supervision of persons suffering from mental deficiency"—

although that is to be changed, it will be "mentally handicapped"—
"who are neither liable to detention in a hospital nor subject to guardianship."
We in Scotland decided, way back in 1960, that all these desirable things should apply to mental health. However, I am afraid that when we look at what has been achieved and what arrangements have been made, and whether they are satisfactory or not, the position is very chancy indeed when one part of the country is compared with another. There may be some parts of the country where the attention given and arrangements made are good. Everything started from different levels and some parts of the country probably had a good start. However, is it not about time to make it a duty to find out what these standards are and how good they are? Do we meet the hopes that we had in 1960? Who better to give the task of finding that out than the strengthened Mental Welfare Commission? That is the purpose and reason for the amendment. There is nothing ulterior about it.
Knowing that it would take some time, I have suggested that the commission should report to the Secretary of State within 18 months of the passing of
1330
the Act. I am prepared to change that, perhaps to two years, if noble Lords think that 18 months is too short a period for the commission to report to the Secretary of State on the adequacy or otherwise of the arrangements made under Section 7, most of which I have already quoted. All those arrangements are desirable and will be helpful. People would be very pleased if they applied, but sadly they do not. The new duty I propose for the commission, is to report on the adequacy or otherwise of the arrangements and to do this within 18 months. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: As the noble Lord said, the amendment would require the Mental Welfare Commission to conduct what I might describe as a nationwide survey of all local authority accommodation in which mentally ill people might be housed, and to report to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of the arrangements—no doubt not only as regards accommodation but on associated services—possibly before the end of 1984. That would be a Herculean task. The commission do not have the resources to carry out such a survey and even if the necessary professional staff could be devoted to the task it could not be done thoroughly within the timescale which the noble Lord lays down.
It is not reports that we need, but real improvements in services. Reports can point the way in which future efforts can be directed and are useful if attention is paid to them; but a report from the Mental Welfare Commission, as the noble Lord suggests in his amendment, would be in addition to the reports which have been, or are being, prepared by the Scottish Health Service Planning Council on various aspects of services for the mentally disordered. These reports are mainly directed at the health service, but they consistently draw attention to the vital part to be played by local authorities, and they have been, and will be, drawn to the attention of local authorities.
I need hardly say to the Committee that these are difficult times. Local authorities are constantly being urged to give priority to those in greatest need. Deficiencies in services for the mentally ill in the community cannot be remedied as rapidly as we all wish. It is not only unnecessary but it would not help to have a report which identifies such deficiencies. The resources which would have to be devoted to preparing the report would be more usefully employed in making improvements in services. Local authorities are very well aware that improvements need to be made. I have no doubt that, with the resources at their disposal, they do their best to make such improvements as and when they can.
I have a certain sympathy with what the noble Lord proposes, but I do not think that the situation would be helped, and it certainly could not be done by the Mental Welfare Commission in the timescale suggested.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I expected that final comment; that is why I said I was prepared to change the time from 18 months to two years. I would even grant the Minister three years. The Minister said that this would be a Herculean task. We are recreating the Scottish Mental Welfare Commission. We are already giving it new duties, so why not this additional

1331
important duty? If we mean what we say about services for the care and protection of the mentally ill, we cannot ignore Section 4 of the original Act. When the original Act was passed it was the local health authorities who were involved. Much of their work has passed to the hospital authorities and to the health boards. However, a considerable section of work still remains with the local authorities, and these are mainly the social work departments of the authorities.
Had the Minister been honest with me and said: "Oh well, forget about looking for the deficiencies; we know there are deficiencies. Do not spend money on a report, spend it on the deficiencies and make improvements", I wonder how far that would have got us. The real fact is that most people know what the deficiencies are and they would be glad to report these to the Mental Welfare Commission and have the support of the commission in pressing the Secretary of State to make the improvements. How are the improvements to be made and the deficiencies remedied? The Minister says that the Mental Welfare Commission do not have the money. Who gives them the money? We have been all through this earlier. The commission have no independence and have no money of their own. They have only money they obtain from the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.
When the Minister says that the commission cannot do it, what he really means is that the Treasury will not provide the money. The fact is that many of our services are being cut at present and the deficiencies are being made worse, and this is in respect, probably, of some of the most helpless people in the whole country who need our help.
We take people into a mental hospital. We discharge them. We encourage them to go in for treatment, and they are there only because they can be treated and there is a possibility of a cure. But everyone knows—and the Minister spoke earlier about the Schizophrenia Society, who probably know better than anyone else—that there may be a temporary improvement in a patient's condition but sooner or later that patient will go back in. But, if the after-care, the continuation of local treatment and the watchfulness to ensure that the proper things are done, do not take place, then there will be a return of the patient. It depends on the local community care that is mentioned in Section 7 of the principal Act. Those are the matters that are being cut at present. If we really mean business, then let us give this task to the Mental Welfare Commission, but when they produce their report it will be embarrassing for the Government because it will demand that the Government spend more money on an essential service at a time when the Government want to cut money to that essential service.
It is about time we had a Division. This is an important matter; it is the touchstone of whether we mean business or not. I hope that we shall receive a favourable answer from the Government which is a little better than the one we had from the Minister of State on the last occasion. Is he going to think about it? He knows quite well the trials and tribulations of poor
1332
Mr. Younger, the Secretary of State, trying to get money out of the Treasury, trying to get it for the steel industry and trying to get it for the railways. We have all been through it and, if he accepts my amendment, then as sure as fate the pressure will again be on the Secretary of State to get money to improve the services for the mentally ill—but they need improving and must be improved.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have no desire and certainly no intention of being drawn into a debate on the state of the National Health Service in Scotland or indeed the Secretary's of State's block vote and how he spends it. All I can say is that the ratio which has been maintained for some years is still being maintained and Scotland gets more than its fair share of resources, although I do not trumpet that about too loudly in the presence of the English. If the Secretary of State wanted to do so, he could devote such resources as he wanted in order to enable this body to carry out the survey which the noble Lord wants. But I have tried to explain to him that I think it would be money that would be ill spent. It is very much better, rather than identifying problems which are already obvious to all and not least to the local authorities, to use that money to try to improve the services as and when the local authorities can do so. For that reason I reject the entire contention behind the noble Lord's remarks.
Secondly, the noble Lord does not say how he suggests that this task should be carried out. I have said that it is Herculean, and in my view that is a perfectly reasonable word to describe it. It would require a large number of skilled professional people to carry it out and it would mean that a large amount of money and resources would have to be devoted to the commission for a purpose which it is really not set up to fulfil. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking to the noble Lord. His amendment is misconceived. I have said that I have a certain sympathy for him, and indeed I have, but not for his amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I wonder whether the problem could be resolved by the Minister giving an undertaking. He has now accepted that there will be a report at least every second year after the passing of the Act—the commission will report every two years. Perhaps there could be an undertaking that the report of the commission will in fact be an assessment of the adequacy of the services such as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has suggested. It is the duty of the commission to measure how far their remit is being carried out. Would the report of the commission be some kind of assessment in that direction? I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would accept that as adequate.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, quite rightly points out that under subsection (6B), which is part of Amendment No. 18, it will be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State, a health board or a local authority, or any other body for that matter, certain matters which the commission consider ought to be brought to his or their attention. Therefore that gives them discretion as to how they are to advise the Secretary of State or the local authority

1333
and I should have thought, with respect, that that is probably the best way for the Mental Welfare Commission to go about their task, rather than to insist by statute that they enter this very large, complex and expensive exercise which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would like introduced under his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Earl says "large, complex and expensive", and yet we are told by the Minister that they already know the deficiencies. A lot of this is known to the Secretary of State already. It is purely a matter for a little co-operation between the Secretary of State's department and the Mental Welfare Commission, so that the Mental Welfare Commission would be able as regards the deficiencies to highlight the priorities in respect of improving the situation.
The noble Earl referred me to subsection (6B) and virtually said, "Oh well, it is there". He says, "Do not do this Herculean task, but if you want to do it you already have the power to do it". He is saying, "Do not embark on this complex task, but it can be done under subsection (6B). Do not embark on this expensive task, but it can be done under subsection (6B)". If that is how he really feels, how will he stop them doing it? Mind you, I do not believe for a minute that what he said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is true—they could not do it under subsection (6B), but if they can it will be changed, by the next stage of the Bill.
Of course I am not going to divide the Committee, but I want to highlight the fact that the Government put the responsibility on the local authority but they do not make it a statutory duty of the local authority. So long as they do not make it a statutory duty of the local authority we shall find one local authority accepting responsibility and spending desirable monies upon it, and other local authorities saving money. When it comes down to the question of rates we know on whose side this Government are. People will suffer because the desirable arrangements that can be made have not been made.
There is one matter that I have not highlighted in this connection because it is the subject of a separate amendment, and that is the whole question of aftercare. You already have it in England and I shall not be satisfied until we have it in Scotland. We were 20 years ahead of England but by the time the Government have finished with this Bill we shall be some years behind it if this type of answer carries on throughout our discussion of this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment so that we can proceed to something else which will probably receive an equally unsatisfactory answer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:—
("Annual report of Mental Welfare Commission.
After subsection (6) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be inserted—
"(6A) The Mental Welfare Commission shall publish annually a report on its activities, and copies of every such report shall be sent by the Mental Welfare Commission to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. This case has already been argued. I have looked up the record of the reporting of the Mental Welfare Commission so far, and it has done so three times in 15 years. As I argued when discussing the Government's amendment, in my view it is right that Government commissions should produce an annual report, in the same way as companies do, and that it should be the subject of public debate and comment. That will do good to the Mental Welfare Commission and make them more known and more responsible. I simply recommend to the Minister that he looks again at the question of annual reports as against biannual reports. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: We have had a good debate on this matter and we have passed Amendment No. 18 into the Bill. I am, of course, always sympathetic to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggests that I do, but I cannot give him any undertaking other than to look at it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 3 [Duty of Mental Welfare Commission to recommend discharge of patient]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mansfield: Amendments which have already been passed into the Bill have, in effect, meant that Clause 3 is surplus to requirements, if I may use that phrase. So I shall not be content for it to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 disagreed to.
Clause 4 [Power of Mental Welfare Commission to appoint persons to make enquiries or chair committees of commissioners]:
6.11 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 takes us back to Section 4(7) of the principal Act in which, as I recollect, the commission is given the power to appoint a committee of the commission to inquire into some matter that requires its special inquiry—it may be in respect of the treatment of a patient, negligence, or something of that nature.
Now we are going beyond that, saying that within that committee, instead of having a commissioner as the chairman, we could possibly have someone who is not a commissioner. Subsection (2) says that a person appointed under this new subsection who is not a commissioner:
"shall be—

(a) an advocate; or

(b) a solicitor

of not less than live years' standing."
I want to know whether advocates and solicitors of five years' standing are the only people who can chair an inquiry of this nature. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: We have to go back to Section 4 of the principal Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, quite rightly directed us. It is necessary to distinguish between routine investigation of complaints or incidents and formal inquiries carried out by the Mental Welfare Commission under the provisions which are set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. These provisions are to be more conveniently relocated after Section 4 of the principal Act as a new Section 4A.
It is in the conduct of formal inquiries having much of the character of court proceedings that the commission may find themselves in difficulties. Therefore, the purpose of Clause 4 is to enable the commission to call upon the services of a legally qualified person to conduct such an inquiry, if the legally qualified members of the commission are not themselves available to do so.
There is nothing to prevent the commission from asking other people to pursue informal inquiries on their behalf in the course of an investigation of a complaint or an incident; but it is desirable that this should only be a matter of convenience, not of necessity. The commission should employ sufficient staff to carry out their investigations without having to rely over much on outside help.
The provisions of Clause 4(2), therefore, are designed simply to express the intention that the person appointed to conduct a formal inquiry should be legally qualified. There is nothing sinister about this; it is merely to add a greater flexibility to the way in which the commission carry out their duties.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is the way in which the Government tell them they will carry out their duties to which I object. Trust a lawyer to come along here with special pleading for lawyers! I have always been suspicious of lawyers. It was interesting that, when the Government set up a commission on legal aid and matters relating to the legal profession, it was not a lawyer, an advocate or a solicitor of "no less than five years' standing" who was made the chairman of that commission; I think it was my noble friend Lord Hughes, who, so far as I know, is no lawyer, but who is a capable man.
I object to this assumption that an inquiry of this nature must necessarily be something related to a court of law. I know some lay magistrates who are a darned sight better than many sheriffs or, indeed, many judges. I see another lawyer frowning at me; I see that I am on dangerous ground so far as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is concerned, too. I am not satisfied that this is something we require. If this was not the assumption, it would not rule out the advocate or the solicitor.
In fact, we have already been told that there are to be two—are there not?—on the commission, and if they are available they would usually take up this task. We have to extend the commission; there is not even a maximum. We might have a whole retinue of
1336
advocates and solicitors of not less than five years' standing there, but when we come to this, do we need specifically to say that the person appointed "shall" be an advocate or a solicitor? There may be someone eminently suitable for this purpose who is not an advocate or a solicitor, but who will now be debarred by statute from being used, even though it might well be the best appointment that could be made. It is this restriction to which I object; hence, I suggest this amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: I want to direct the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to what it is that he is complaining about in Schedule 2. If I may be a touch vulgar for a moment, this is not some sort of underhand way of squirting just a little bit more gravy at the legal profession. This is in respect of one part of the commission's activities when they are, in fact, instituting formal inquiries. The proceedings in a formal inquiry by the commission have the privilege of a court of law, for instance, and in many ways the proceedings have the character of court proceedings. Therefore, if the commission are not in a position to call upon the services of a legally qualified person to conduct the proceedings, they may well find themselves in difficulties and not be able to carry out the formal inquiry which they intend to, and which they have to in certain circumstances.
Therefore, as I have said, the purpose here is to give the commission a little bit more flexibility. In other words, they can hire the services of a lawyer if their own legally qualified commissioners are otherwise engaged or are unable to act. It is no more sinister than that, and I hope, with that explanation, that the noble Lord will realise that it is a comparatively small provision to correct what could be a complicated defect in the way in which the board carries out its duties if it comes to a formal inquiry.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Minister of State has referred more than once to the "formal inquiry", relating it to a court of law and the rest of it. Can he tell me where in the statute it says this?
The Earl of Mansfield: I have referred the noble Lord to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which sets out these inquiries.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Which Act—the principal Act?
The Earl of Mansfield: If the noble Lord would care to withdraw his amendment, then he can peruse all this while we get on with the next one. It is in Schedule 2 to this Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I asked a simple question—which Act or which Bill? I am sure that we could get on very much better if the Minister of State would just control himself and keep a little calm. He will get his meal in about 40 minutes. We have plenty of time. So far as getting on to the next amendment is concerned, I hope when we do consideration will be given to the points made with a little less bad temper than on this specific occasion.
The point I made is still worth making. There are

1337
people who can conduct these inquiries. The person conducting them can have legal advisers. No doubt the first thing he will do is appoint himself a legal adviser. There will be a fairly generous helping of gravy for the legal profession. I daresay that this is to make up for the disadvantages that are going to arise from the next Bill that the Government produce, when they are to take away from some of the Edinburgh advocates the ability to conduct divorce cases in the sheriff courts, which will make things much simpler there, but about which the lawyers are presently screaming. We shall hear about that Bill in due time.
I can assure the noble Earl that I am not satisfied. I am not going to press my amendment at this time. Far be it from me to embarrass him with a defeat of the Government on something as important as this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to,
Clause 5 [Appointment etc. of staff by Mental Welfare Commission]:
6.22 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert—
(" (2) The Mental Welfare Commission shall appoint medically qualified staff to undertake the duties of the commission, and these shall not be the medically qualified "Medical Commissioners.")
.The noble Lord said: As in the case of so many amendments to this amending Bill, we have already touched on some of the matters raised by this amendment. The Minister has assured me that he is going to have another look at this question since he misunderstood the purpose of an earlier amendment in this connection. These amendments are to ensure that the Mental Welfare Commissioners sit largely as a voluntary body, but they are not appointed as consultant psychiatrists to the commission. None of the members of the commission sit as medical people or consultant psychiatrists, but as commissioners.
So far as I am concerned I am happy for three of the commissioners to have medical qualifications, but not that they should act as psychiatrists in the exercise of the commission's business. There must be a clear distinction between the commission's responsibility as a board, which is equal among the members, and their employment of people in order to discharge their functions. Consultant psychiatrists can be employed as staff of the commission, but we must not confuse the responsibilities of the commissioners with the discharge of their duties as consultant psychiatrists.
The commissioners must remain objective in judgment of all of the matters that are referred to them. Therefore, they are arbitrators, and it is wrong to confuse the medical commissioners who could act as consultant psychiatrists to the commission and the employment of staff so to do. There is an important distinction here. The medical commissioners—that is the three men who have medical experience—sit there as commissioners, and do not sit there as staff discharging the duties of the commission. That is an important distinction. The commission must be objective, and must be the arbitrators. The Minister
1338
assured me in the debate on the previous amendment that he was going to look at this matter, and I hope that he will be equally generous with this particular amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: As I understand it, what the noble Lord is seeking to ensure is that the medically qualified commissioners of the Mental Welfare Commission shall not in fact sit other than in judgment over the efforts of other people. That, I think, is something for which I do not have a great deal of sympathy. Historically, the medical commissioners have visited patients and examined them. They have inspected medical records. Indeed, in many cases the work of the commission, I will not say would be affected fatally but would be considerably hindered unless the person undertaking the particular task in relation to whatever it is that the commission are doing is not only medically qualified but is a member of the commission.
It would be perfectly open to the commission to employ medically qualified staff, and indeed they do. They employ a variety of professional persons, sometimes for a period and sometimes on a part-time basis in relation to certain of their functions. I do not suppose that the noble Lord would want to exclude them from that. What he seeks to do is to see to it that the medical commissioners do not undertake the sort of work I have illustrated.
I do not think that the noble Lord has really given any very good reasons as to why the medical commissioners should be prevented from undertaking the tasks they have carried out previously. I know that there is a certain amount of internecine warfare among different branches of the medical profession about this, and I have the feeling that what the noble Lord suggests has perhaps been suggested by one or other of the branches. Unless the noble Lord can think of some more cogent reasons why in fact the medical commissioners should be debarred from acting as medical men as opposed merely to sitting as arbitrators, I cannot recommend that the Committee accept this amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am sorry I have been unable to convince the Minister about the wisdom of this amendment. It goes to the root of what we visualise as being the responsibility of the Mental Welfare Commission. I see that body as a body of equals, sitting there as a board sits, with certain responsibilities. But what you are creating is a board of 10 or 11 people with a few laymen on the board and some lawyers, there may even be someone from the voluntary organisations, and then you are to have three medical people. This is not a professional board. This is largely a voluntary board to which people give their services. These are matters of complaint where someone has taken the initiative in complaining about wrongful detention. They are matters concerning the duties and responsibilities of the hospital when caring, in which you have to have objective judgment; and to employ three members of the board to conduct that inquiry is not sound.
It is perfectly sound, of course, for the commission to employ consultant psychiatrists and medical people to give them advice, but it is wrong for the people who are in judgment of the matters to be professionally

1339
involved in doing that. This is an important amendment which goes to the heart of how you see this commission. It is not like the old commission; it is a new commission with new responsibilities, and I suggest that we should make that break now.
The Earl of Mansfield: The medical commissioners act as what I might call the executive directors of the commission; that is a convenient shorthand way of describing their role. It would of course be possible for them not to do that—in other words, for professional people to be employed to carry out the work they presently do in this field—but what the noble Lord has not produced are any arguments as to whether the system is wrong and, if so, why it is wrong.
A great many points have been raised as a result of the consultation document and a number of criticisms have been made about the work of the commission in other contexts, but nobody has suggested what the noble Lord is suggesting and, so far as I know, there has not been any complaint that by reason of their executive character, so to speak, the medical commissioners are in any way acting unfairly or in some way to the prejudice of the patient, or are doing something that should be stopped. That is what I find difficult about the noble Lord's argument; we have not had any complaints, and he does not produce any instances or cogent arguments as to why they should be stopped from acting in the future as executive directors.
However, I am prepared, if it would help him, to ask my officials if there have been any complaints, although I understand that in fact there have not. I am prepared to investigate the situation, but I must tell the noble Lord that I have no evidence before me at present—and, of course, once the amendments were tabled we pursued the necessary inquiries—to suggest that anything is wrong with the system.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: It is difficult, of course, to make complaints against the commission. I am happy that the Minister is prepared to look at the matter again, because it impinges on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross—the question of fees and duties—and I presume that the medical members of the commission, as well as being a distinct category on the commission (which I do not think they should be; they should all be equal on the commission), when discharging their responsibilities as medical members then collect their professional fees from the commission. I do not quibble about that.
Nevertheless, this is an important point of dividing the commission between fee-collecting members and other, voluntary members; and I should like the Minister to look at the functions of the commission as arbiters in judging matters that are referred, and whether the commission's judgment is impaired by the fact that one of their number conducts the inquiry. It would seem that it would be very difficult for the commission to reject anything that was done by one of their number. If, on the other hand, they employed, say, a consultant psychiatrist, they would be in a much more objective situation in judging the rightness or wrongness of the matter referred to them.
This is a fundamental point, and while I am not convinced by the Minister's reply I should be happy if he would look at the system as it now operates.
The Earl of Mansfield: I give that undertaking, but I could not give any commitment other than that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I should like to know, before we allow the clause to stand part of the Bill, what sort of improvement, if any, it is on the original Act. I will not hark back to the arguments we had on Clause 1 in relation to the new subsection (7B). We have already decided that the Secretary of State may provide for the commission,
"such officers and servants and such accommodation as the Commission may require".
It is the Secretary of State who will provide all that, but under Clause 5 we see that the Mental Welfare Commission will be able to appoint officers and servants and fix their remuneration, and so on, including pensions and the rest. Then we return once again to the everlasting and ever-with-us Secretary of State and the Treasury: so long as they determine it, the commission can do it.
I should like to know what point there is in having the two things, and why they must be so separated—and this is relevant to the debate we just had about whether the Secretary of State appoints medical commissioners who then, as commissioners, employ themselves. This is a very serious matter. We have already been told that two of the medical commissioners are full-time. So here are two full-time people employing themselves. Do they get further remuneration, emoluments or allowances for the number of people they examine and the various visits they make, bearing in mind that they will be making more visits? The visits are to be at least once every three years.
I question the changes that are being made. A great illusion is being created about the independence of the commission. Would it not be a good idea, from the point of view of us all, for the Government to tell us what the Mental Welfare Commission of Scotland are now? Where do they meet, for example? I would hazard the guess that it might even be at the Scottish Office. How many people do they employ? Is the answer none because they are all employed by the Scottish Office, they are all civil servants? We would have the matter in better perspective if we were told the exact position of the commission today. Once we get the full picture, we should begin to understand why they do not report all that often.
While I am not necessarily against all that is proposed, there are so many bits and pieces of the old Act left, now being amended by something absolutely new, that it does not always make sense. That is why I want the Government to justify Clause 5. After all, it will be exactly the same as it was; the Secretary' of State and the Treasury were in the original Act and appear in this clause. However, we are told that somehow or other there will be some great change coming over the

1341
commission; they will be able to appoint their officers and servants and make provision for the payment of this, that and the other, but only if the Secretary of State agrees. That is already said, without the proposed change, so I want the Government to justify burdening us with the clause and pretending it is something new.
The Earl of Mansfield: We have been round this course before. As the Committee knows—and as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, certainly knows—at present the Mental Welfare Commission borrow staff (civil servants, if you like) from the Secretary of State to carry out their role. There are a number of disadvantages in that. For example, it can be suggested, and has been, that because of it the commission are not as independent as they should be, though they are carrying out a very independent role. It also means that the staff have first to become civil servants before they can work for the commission. It was therefore decided that the commission should, as it were, stand to one side from the Scottish Office and be given the power to employ their own staff, and to enable them to do that we have these perfectly routine provisions. Clause 5 in effect applies ordinary enabling powers to the commission so that they may employ people and pay them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, at the end it is subject to the Secretary of State because the payment for all this has to come out of his block and, like everything else in this country, there is in the background the eminence, although it may not necessarily be very grise, in the form of the Treasury. It really is not very suspicious. I beseech the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to accept that this is merely a way of ensuring a further degree of independence on the part of the Mental Welfare Commission and to give them the power, which they have not got at the moment, to employ their own staff. If Clause 5 is not written into the Bill then the Mental Welfare Commission will not be in a position to employ staff as is intended and as (I think it will be seen from what I have said) is manifestly desirable.
Lord Ross of Mamock: I still think it is an illusion of independence. The answer has not been given as to where they meet at the present time and where all this mass of staff is going to be accommodated in future. Could I have the answer to that before I agree with the rest of the Committee that the clause should stand part? Where do the Commission meet just now? Where do all these officers and servants—a lovely phrase, "officers and servants"—which the Secretary of State has been providing for them since 1962, since the 1960 Act was passed, all meet and congregate at the moment? Where is their accommodation at the present time, and where is it going to be in the future?
The Earl of Mansfield: I gather that they meet in 22, Melville Street, in Edinburgh. Whether they will thank me for giving their address to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I do not know.
Lord Ross of Marnock: And who owns 22, Melville Street? This is what I want to know. Who is paying the rent for them at the present time?
The Earl of Mansfield: Probably the Secretary of State for Scotland, as they are a creature of the Secretary of State. They owe their existence and their continued existence to the Secretary of State. It comes from his block. I thought I had said that four, five or six times this evening.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Minister has said that they have a new independence, that they can employ their own staff. They are still a creature of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is still a creature of the Treasury. Every time it is mentioned the words are there, that "The Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury…". There is absolutely no change. And I wager that they will still meet in 22, Melville Street—and we will have spent all this time examining this complex, with all the help and the legal skill of the Minister of State. Eventually we have got to know what they are doing. They are making no change at all except in words—and, oh!, they are going to get pensions now, and emoluments. We are just going to spend more money. As soon as the Prime Minister discovers that, then I know who the next Governor of the Falklands will be.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
("Annual Report.
. It shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission to report annually to the Secretary of State who shall lay it before Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: We have had this debate twice. I am prepared to move the amendment, but I think it is far better that we leave it now. The decision has been taken that we have a report not annually but every' two years. I think we will leave it there and not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Wells-Pestell): I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 24 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 25.
Clause 6 [Definition of "mental disorder"]:
6.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment, at least—and I can be guided, I hope, in the draftsmanship if this wording does not attain its objective—is to make a distinction between "mental illness" and "mental handicap". There is that confusion in the Bill. It is quite inappropriate that mental illness should be mixed up with the problems of mental handicap. Mental handicap is a permanent disability and requires specialist help of a quite different kind from mental illness, which is treatable and, in many cases, thankfully, transient. There is confusion over the two kinds of problem and it would be sensible if a separate Act were to concern itself with mental handicap. I know that this would mean new legislation. Nevertheless, I think it is very important to

1343
make that distinction when we are dealing with this matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: As my name is added to that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on this amendment, perhaps I may add a word here. I gather that this change of the expression "mental deficiency" to "mental handicap" is possible. I would not disagree that in many ways the expression "mental handicap" is perhaps a more attractive one than "mental deficiency". It was pointed out several times in the Second Reading debate how important it is to distinguish between retarded development or delayed development and what is, properly speaking, mental disorder. I am bound to say that I think that changing the name at this stage may add a certain amount of confusion—confusion which, frankly, already exists.
The difference between these sorts of institution is not all that well understood by many people in the country. I believe that this was the opinion of the Scottish Office when the Green Paper was brought out in, I think, April. They said that mental deficiency has a long history of legal usage, and is well understood by the courts and all those concerned with forensic psychiatry. A change in legal terms would achieve no great clarity and would lead to some confusion.
I think that that is perfectly true. I do not think that we should make the change unless we are quite sure that it is a wise one. The trouble with the expression "mental handicap" is that it has no clear element of definition. If we are honest with ourselves, then probably everyone of us has some kind of mental handicap. I can tell you that, among other things, my memory has greatly decreased as the years have gone by. What is implied by "mental handicap" can perfectly well be implied by "mental disorder" just as well as by "mental defect" and it leaves the thing quite open. I must admit that I belong to the school that believes that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I cannot think that it is good enough to change a well-known phrase just because it sounds better. There may be better reasons than that but I think we should not change it unless there are better reasons.
I know that it will probably be said that the expression is used in England; but this is an expression which is of concern to people in Scotland and what is said in England does not really make a great deal of difference. I should add that there are a large number of expressions in this Bill besides mental handicap. There are "mental illness", "mental impairment", "severe mental impairment", "mental disorder" and "defective". Do we really want to muddle it further by having an additional one? There may be a very good reason for doing so; but I really have considerable doubts as to whether we should be wise to make this change just because the phrase sounds better.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I could say that the words "mentally handicapped" were taken out of the English Bill. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not here. He would have been able to explain very fully the difference between the expressions "mentally handicapped" and "mentally ill". It seems to me, being a Scot, a pity that Scotland might be lagging behind England in this matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am right in thinking that if this amendment were carried the words "mental defective" would remain in the statute. That is the sole effect of the amendment. Frankly, I was faced with the same problem as to how to raise this particular point. I came to it with a different solution, one which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will support if she looks at the next amendment, No. 25. We make the change and refer to "mental handicap".
The noble Earl may have heard lawyers talk about "mental deficiency" and "mental defective". I think it is derogatory. Has he heard children talk about people being "MD", and all that that means? This is a desirable change, and it is true to say that when it was first suggested the Scottish Office said that it would cause too much confusion, but then they changed their minds. The feeling is very strong about it. When it comes to ordinary people who suffer or whose family are embarrassed by a particular phrase being attached to them, I am in their favour rather than that of the lawyers who are going to be a little incommoded by the change in language.
My amendment puts "mental handicap" in the Bill as the Government wish, but it inserts:
"and on a date determined by the Secretary' of State by order all reference to persons suffering from mental handicap shall be omitted from the Act."
I do not want to belabour the point at the present time. I want to warn my noble friend that I do not think this amendment to retain the terms "mental deficiency" and "mental defective" will be welcome.
The Earl of Mansfield: There are two amendments and really two questions in the way that this debate has proceeded. Amendment No. 24 is simply a matter of language. If it were accepted, then the expression "mental deficiency" would remain in use as opposed to it being replaced by "mental handicap". I take into account the views of the Committee about this, obviously; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that there has been considerable pressure to replace the term which is regarded in some circles as being derogatory. It is something which I can very well understand. If we were now to replace "mental handicap" by the old term of "mental deficiency" there would be a good deal of disappointment. But, as I say, I am very much in the hands of the Committee. If there was a consensus of opinion that the term "mental handicap" was unsatisfactory or undesirable, I would at once undertake to take the matter away and have more consultations. I should not like to accept Amendment No. 24 tonight.
Amendment No. 25 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and he has more or less spoken to it now. It is quite different in its effect. What it does is to say that the mentally handcapped shall be legislated for in a totally different way and in a totally different Bill from the mentally ill. That is quite a different matter. I have a certain sympathy with the view that if this was a perfect world it would be very nice if we could legislate totally outside a Bill such as this for what I prefer to call the mentally handicapped.
I have to say that the principal Act, which is the 1960 Act, was recognised as a great improvement on earlier legislation. It brought together a tangled web of

1345
enactments, most of which were out of date, and it dealt separately with those previously referred to I think as "lunatics" and "mental defectives". This process did not just happen; it took a long time. If we were to consider accepting Amendment No. 25, I think that we would have to give very considerable care and attention to disentangling legislation so as to achieve an even measure of separation. I am not saying that it would not be worth the effort necessary, but it would certainly require a great deal of thought. It would also require parliamentary time, which is not available.
Fundamental changes are taking place in the way in which mentally handicapped people are treated in our society. Naturally enough, with strained resources, many people say that changes are not taking place anywhere near fast enough. But there is a steadily increasing momentum in the move away from the large medically-orientated institutions which have come to us from the past. The pattern of care is still evolving, and I think that it would be premature in the midst of this process of evolution to start now to think of new legislation without having given fairly careful thought to the circumstances to which it is likely to apply.
I suppose, if we were to put our minds and the necessary resources to it, we would achieve two separate Acts which would be, if not identical, pretty similar in many respects. I am not sure that to go through that motion is something which appeals to me. Whether it would benefit the mentally handicapped is extremely doubtful, although I have no doubt that it would please those who care for them and are in many cases related to them. May I leave the Committee with this thought: the provisions in Clauses 6 and 8, and other parts of the Bill, make it clear that although the protective functions of the Mental Welfare Commission and various other provisions apply equally to the mentally handicapped or mentally ill, the provisions which relate to compulsory admission and detention in hospitals affect only a small proportion of the mentally handicapped.
If one goes to the original memorandum which was circulated to all Members of the other place and also to noble Lords who are interested, there were at the time when the suggestions were drawn up, I think in 1979, some mentally handicapped people, although very few, who were required to be detained in their own interests or for the safety of others, for no other reason than the behaviour which resulted from their mental handicap. That being so, the provisions of the Bill relating to compulsory detention in hospital or to guardianship are as relevant to the small minority of mentally handicapped people in question as they are to the much greater number of mentally ill people who require to be detained. Speaking purely from memory, I think the figure is 99; just under a hundred people.
The question of separate legislation, if one looks at it in this way, is much less attractive and much less justified than one might think at first blush. For those reasons, so far as Amendment No. 24 is concerned, I am very happy to take it away and look at it, if required by the feeling of the Committee. I hope that when it comes to the point the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will not feel it necessary to move Amendment No. 25.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Just before the noble Lord decides what he wishes to do—
Lord Ross of Marnock: Might I inform your Lordships that I have not even moved my amendment yet.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I just ask the noble Earl whether he does not think it important, with the movement between England and Scotland of people, in whatever category they are, that they should be called the same thing? People do move with their families, with mentally handicapped children or with mentally ill people, from one country to the other. After all, this is supposed to be "Great Britain", and many complications may arise if, on one side of the Border, they are called "mentally handicapped" and, on the other side, they are called whatever that out-of-date word was. I cannot remember it.
The Earl of Mansfield: The term was "mentally deficient". May I try to help the noble Baroness by saying that it is an argument, though I do not believe it is a very strong one, and I do not see why we in Scotland should follow the English if, so to speak, our own people are urging us not to do so.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: If it will help to progress the business of the Committee, in view of the fact that the Minister apparently accepts Amendment No. 24 because it is less complicated and would entail less legislation than Amendment No. 25, I am not sure, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that there is a unanimous view in the organisations that we are dealing with in England that the English terminology is better than that produced elsewhere. I would simply beg leave to withdraw my amendment, on the assurance of the Minister that he accepts it in principle, and will look at this matter further.
The Earl of Selkirk: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I really do not feel strongly about this at all, but, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, "MD" will change to "MH" and it will make no difference whatever. I have considerable doubt as to whether it is worth legislating for something which will have no effect, if we all know a dozen words which are used commonly in place of either, and those terms will continue to be used. I feel that this will have no effect whatsoever and therefore I doubt whether it is worth putting into the Bill. That is my argument.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Was the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, right when he assumed that the Minister of State accepted the principle of his amendment? I did not get that impression. I am supporting the Minister in the amendment he has down. I entirely disapprove of what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I have talked to some of these people, and in fact have found that this is the term which patients themselves and the parents prefer to use about their children—that they are mentally handicapped and not mentally defective. Whether he, as a lawyer, likes it or not, I, as an ordinary person moving among people, am telling him that they feel it very strongly and they put it very strongly to the Scottish Office. The Scottish

1347
Office did resist it, but the pressure was such that they decided to make the change, and I think they were right to do so. I hope that the Government stand by their position in respect of this amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I, too, fully support what has been said by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. The words "mentally defective" have a slur attached to them, and I think that "mentally handicapped" is a much better term to use.
The Earl of Mansfield: Just so that there shall be no mistake—and I do not think there should have been, in view of what I said earlier—I said that I was really in the hands of the Committee and that the Government had prepared this legislation as a result of a lot of pressure, but that if there was pressure from the Committee on me to reconsider what had been done, I would go away and reconsider it. As things stand, however, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that a lot of people in Scotland are pressing for the change in expression.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: Possibly this would be a convenient moment to break and go on to the next business. In moving that the House do now resume, may I say that we will not come back to this particular business before ten minutes to eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Plant Varieties Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Period for which plant breeders ' rights are exercisable]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert—
("( ) In section 2 (conditions for grant of rights) of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 (in this Act referred to as "the 1964 Act")—

(a) in subsection (2) the words "or discovered" shall cease to have effect in both places where they occur; and

(b) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the more we look at this Bill the more some of us have come to see that there are very grave disadvantages and flaws in it. One of the major flaws is that of the serious problems which are caused by the establishment of breeders' rights in discoveries. In industrial patents, before a patent can be recognised a demand is made for an inventive step, without which the patent is not granted and is not valid. Anything which has the nature of just a fortuitous discovery which is not an inventive step does not get a patent.
If that is so in industrial matters, it seems to me how much more it should be so in the case of plants existing in the wild. There are vital and almost theological issues involved in the establishment of the idea of ownership and the protection of ownership of something which grows wild in many countries. It is this question which I presume to suggest that the Government have not fully plumbed to date and which I hope they will be able to comment on at this particular stage in the proceedings and see whether there is something they can do to improve the Bill.
The amendments which I propose fully grant the right to plant breeders to patent the plants they have produced through their own skill and hard work; but for the life of me I cannot see the case for patenting discoveries in the wild. To this extent I think the 1964 Act was wrong and, so far from extending it in this respect, we should correct it. Nor is it just a question of the basic principle of the matter. The developing countries are deeply concerned, as well they may be, about such developments. The great majority of these plants come from the third world and the steps which are now being taken will have the effect of taking from the third world some of the very few economic advantages they naturally have at this moment.
I am consistently appalled by the "rip-offs" to which these countries ae subject in the name of some kind of western advantage. Sometimes it is clothed, as it has been in the past, I admit, by my party in the beneficient name of free trade. Of course that is only when it suits us; this particular Bill does exactly the opposite. This is a Bill in restraint of trade. As a result, other countries are thinking of restricting trade with us, because there is no doubt that the developing countries feel extremely strongly on this matter.
Already, at the Food and Agriculture Organisation, developing countries have successfully called for that body to draw up a legally binding convention governing the exchange of plant genetic resources, and in this forum scientists and diplomats are speaking bluntly about an embargo upon the transfers of genetic material to countries with legislation of the kind which we are dealing with tonight. This already represents a threat to the long-term interests of plant breeding. Brazil, the Ivory Coast, Malaysia and Madagascar have already placed bans on the export of all, or some, materials.
Since the vast majority of new breeding material has its origin in the centres of genetic diversity, which are all in the third world, this emerging conflict will harm the free exchange of germ plasm throughout the world and could detrimentally affect future plant breeding and agricultural development in Great Britain and other parts of the world. I have a series of quotations here, which I shall not read at the moment, showing the great disturbance that there is in countries such as the Philippines, Ghana, Malaysia and other countries about these steps that are beginning to be taken.
I suggest that this Bill goes a lot too far at this moment, that it would be quite enough for this Bill and quite enough for the purposes for which it was originally brought forward if it confined itself to dealing with the patenting of plants which are truly bred by the efforts and inventiveness of plant breeders, and if it did not include this far wider concept, which

1349
probably has very little basis in either justice or equity. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, brought this Bill forward on Second Reading he explained very fully what was its purpose. Basically, it was to rationalise the EEC regulations on the number of years for which plant breeders can claim their royalties. The main object of the Bill was to amend the original Act to that extent. But the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has widened the Bill very considerably by his amendment. I have been lobbied by various people on the whole Bill, on what it does to developing countries and on the fact that it may be keeping back development of various genes that they have; although the noble Earl gave us an indication of the huge storage of genes that we have in this country.
I have in front of me a book written by Mr. Peter Mooney, who has produced all the arguments, which have a grain of truth here and there, but I think that they are grossly exaggerated. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to think of the tremendous advantage that it has been to this country in having people going abroad and discovering plants which have been brought back here and have been developed and multiplied to the benefit not only of this country, but of the countries from which they came, as well as others. It would be a huge mistake to inhibit people who do that sort of thing and I am certain that it would not help the countries concerned if people with the knowledge and the money to make these discoveries all over the world did not get some advantage from the work that they do. So I do not think that we can support this amendment, which goes a lot wider than the short Bill which we have before us.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, put a very persuasive case in moving this amendment. I could not agree with him that this is a Bill which restricts trade. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said, a Bill to protect the rights of those who have invested considerably in various forms of plant breeding, for which investment they are perfectly entitled to a return; otherwise, plant breeding will not continue.
I understand the sincere feelings which underlie the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and his views on the importance of safeguarding the genetic resources of the world. But, after all, these genetic resources are a heritage of all mankind and I do not think the noble Lord was quite right when he referred to the "rip-offs" of other countries which have been carried out for the advantage of the west. It is true that some of the fundamental plant material which is used by breeders in Europe or North America is obtained from other countries, including those in the developing world, but this cannot justifiably be considered theft.
As a rule, great care is taken to ensure that only small samples are taken from an indigenous population of plants, and the national authorities and breeding institutions where they exist are usually involved. Therefore, this Bill does not, as I think the noble Lord said, give the discoverer ownership. Man
1350
has always transferred crops from one continent to another, and modern man is certainly no exception to that.
But, be that as it may, there is anxiety that genetic resources may be lost and, obviously, that must be prevented. A most effective means of prevention is to continue the establishment of a world network of gene banks, most of which, for the tropical crops, are held in international institutes which are located in third world countries. As I explained to your Lordships during the Committee stage, we in the United Kingdom play a very important role in that. One of the most effective safeguards against such loss is the existence of a progressive plant breeding industry, such as we have in the United Kingdom, which will naturally ensure that stocks of genetic material are properly maintained for the production of improved plant varieties in the future, many of which, as now and in the past, will be used to improve the agricultural productivity and food supply in developing nations.
Having said that, I must ask the House to reject this amendment, which would have the effect of depriving the United Kingdom plant breeding industry—which I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has made an immense contribution to the development of agriculture, not only in this country but in other parts of the world—of genetic material which has been available to it for literally hundreds of years. This would disadvantage our breeders, while allowing breeders in other countries to go ahead quite unfettered. It would rule out the plant breeders' protection not only of the commercially useful plants which are growing in the wild, but also of the genetic variant or "sport" which periodically occurs in the course of commercial or amateur plant cultivation.
It is rare that a wild species would alone be suitable for immediate exploitation. It is much more likely that it would be used as part of a commercial breeding programme, involving considerable cost to the breeder. It is the requirement for this heavy investment which has resulted in the development of indigenous plant species of the third world being undertaken to a very large extent by breeders in the developed nations. Had this not been so, valuable plant resources might have lain unused for many years, or would have been lost forever to the detriment, particularly, of the developing countries.
Where, rarely, a discovery in the wild or a chance mutant does occur, it is surely not unreasonable that the discoverer, who may have expended resources in exploration, who has imagination to spot the potential of a new plant and who is prepared to fund its development and wider distribution at great risk, should have the opportunity through grant of plant variety rights to share in the wealth which his discovery has created. Years before the introduction of plant breeders' rights in the United Kingdom it was the practice to bring into this country flowers, shrubs and trees from other countries. There are many examples. I think immediately of rhododendrons, azaleas, prunus. They are just a few of the obvious ones which had their origins in countries very far distant from ours. Every country with a market for flowers and shrubs does likewise, and I can see nothing wrong in their doing so. I do not see that to deny the genetic

1351
potential of these species would be of benefit either to the countries concerned or to mankind as a whole.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the longer I stay in politics the more I should learn not to be amazed at anything, but I still am. I am always particularly amazed at the way in which efforts to gain commercial advantage of one kind or another can be wrapped up in high-sounding language. On this occasion, I am particularly amazed and rather distressed by the attitude taken by the Labour Front Bench. I can only hope that in the other place there will be another look at the matter. I cannot believe that the fine traditions of the Labour Party in dealing with the third world over matters of this kind are going to be treated in quite the way they have been treated tonight.
I do not intend to go over the arguments. I just want to make the point that it is the countries affected who are deeply concerned about this; namely, the countries where the plant germ plasm come from, which can expect in time to benefit most strongly from whatever the development of these plants may be. They are already putting pressure on those countries in the developed world which are behaving in the way that our country is behaving. Bills like this have been withdrawn in several countries as a result of pressure from the third world.
I will quote one of the sources which I refrained from mentioning in my previous speech. Mr. Adansi, the chief research officer of the Oil Palm Research Centre, Ghana, is just one of a number of spokesmen for the developing countries. He is utterly in favour of promoting an international network of genetic resource centres,
"to further collection, conservation, documentation, evaluation and use of plant germ plasm and thereby contribute to raising the standard of living and welfare of people throughout the world".
Those are fine words which we all use. However, Mr. Adansi goes on to say:
"Patent protections can only jeopardise this lofty ideal, especially when breeders obtain gratis the germ plasm they use."
This is the attitude of the developing countries. This is what they feel about what is happening. They are the source, so often, of the plants which we are talking about.
I am deeply disappointed by the Government's reaction, but I do not believe that it is worth pursuing the matter further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Plant breeders' rights in special cases]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
7.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 21, after ("varieties") insert ("whose commercial value is based exclusively on their decorative qualities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a slightly different situation. The purpose of the clause and, to a certain extent, of the Bill, is the protection of the cut
1352
flower growers of the Channel Islands. The Government explained to various people interested in the matter, including international bodies, as late as October 1981 that that was one of the purposes of the Bill. There is a certain amount of sympathy for this aim. If the Bill only did that and did not do it in such a way as to damage other people, we should have no objection to it. Clause 5 covers the Channel Islands. Clause 2 opens the door to all sorts of protection of end products. In some ways one can say that this clause is even more horrifying than Clause 1.
The simple patenting of a plant can be extended by the Minister to the protection of any end product. If, therefore, I find a wild flower in Malawi, bring it to this country and discover that its seed is a useful product of some kind—for instance, a useful drug—I can embargo the sale by anybody else in Great Britain of that drug, even if it is produced easily in the wild in any other country. I suspect that that is wrong. Indeed. I am fairly certain that it is wrong. I suspect that the Government did not intend to do that. They were merely trying to extend plant patenting to cut flowers and Clause 2 was the simplest way of doing it. If, however, one follows the possibilities of Clause 2 through to the end, one sees that almost any end product of a plant could be patented and protected in this kind of way. This is rather absurd and I do not believe that it was intended.
I suggest that a simple solution is to limit the effect of this clause to the aim which was intended; namely, the protection of flower growers. Although I am prepared to admit that my amendment may not be drafted in the best way, I believe that it manages to do just that, and I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has an uncanny knack of lifting up stones and seeing what kind of slugs are underneath them. I am bound to say that this particular amendment of his is not necessary, since its effect is obtained by the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill as it stands. One of the main purposes of the clause is to delete from the 1964 Act the provision which enables plant breeders' rights to be extended to the sale of end products such as blooms or fruit obtained by the seller from plants of protected varieties of plants which he has multiplied up in the United Kingdom. This provision has never been used, since it has been considered undesirable that a breeder should enjoy double protection. He should not be able to obtain royalties in respect of a product which has been obtained through the multiplying up of his variety as well as the royalties obtainable on the multiplication itself.
The provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Act have applied since 1964 without difficulties of the kind which the amendment moved by the noble Lord is apparently designed to avert. But, even if Ministers were disposed to make a scheme extending breeders' rights to cover the production of plants for the sale of processed foods, medicines and so forth, there are fully adequate safeguards in Section 1 of the Act, which requires Ministers to consult representatives of interests concerned and then to proceed by way of statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution in either House of Parliament.

1353
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to the Channel Islands, and there may be some misunderstanding regarding the application of the Bill to the Channel Islands. Clause 5(2) does no more than enable the Bill's provisions to be extended to the Channel Islands by Order in Council, in the same way as the provisions of the Act may be so extended. So far, the Channel Islands have declined such extension. In any case, the problem of imported cut blooms and so forth is not confined to the Channel Islands; other countries in Eastern Europe and Africa are involved in the trade. The official record of the UPOV Council meeting—that awful abbreviation stands for the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants—to which reference was made, shows that the United Kingdom representative referred to:
"cut flowers from the Channel Islands, for instance, or from more distant regions".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will realise that his amendment and the worries with which it concerns itself are already covered by the Bill.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. I will go away and study it, and no doubt those who will have to deal with this Bill in another place will be doing the same. I was not entirely satisfied with the reassurance that the interests concerned will be consulted on this matter because I was making the point that the interests concerned are very often of such a nature that the Minister will be most unlikely to consult them. I suspect that the Minister will not be consulting any of the developing nations in whose land a number of these plants have their origin. The particular point about the development of the end product is a complex one, and whereas I believe we do need to look at it again—and by "we" I mean Parliament as a whole—I do not propose taking it any further at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved].
Schedule 1 [Amendments of the 1964 Act]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 16, leave out from ("section") to end of line 18 and insert ("the words "in connection with the registered name of a plant variety" shall be omitted and for the words from "other than" onwards there shall be substituted the words "if—

(a) that mark or name and the registered name are juxtaposed; and

(b) the registered name is easily recognisable.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and speak to Amendment No. 6, which is consequential. At the Committee stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Walston, tabled an amendment to Schedule 1 to the Bill, which he was good enough to withdraw later on the basis of my assurance that I would examine the point which he had made and, if necessary, incorporate it into the Bill. As that point is related to the one which is the subject of the current amendment, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to deal with that point first.
The concern expressed by the noble Lord was, in essence, that the term "reproductive material" as defined in Section 15 of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 could be interpreted as including any kinds of material—for example, cut blooms, apples, and other fruit or vegetables for consumption—which were capable of being used for reproductive purposes, whether or not they were commonly so used and regardless of whether or not the purchaser intended to use them in that way. Had the noble Lord's interpretation been correct, the implication was that all such material would have had to be labelled with the registered variety name. To use again the example which was given by the noble Lord, his fear was that the apple which was sold and known generally as "Crispin" would have had to be labelled with its registered Japenese name, which I am told is "Mutsu", when it was displayed for sale on the greengrocers' shelves. After consideration, I find that the noble Lord's fear is unfounded.
Interpretation of the law is, of course, a matter for the courts. However, I am advised that the term "reproductive material" can properly be applied, in the case of non-ornamental plants and parts of non-ornamental plants, only to material for reproduction and not to material for consumption or some other use. It follows that apples and other fruit—and potatoes and other vegetables which are obviously being sold for consumption—are not reproductive material.
In the case of ornamental plants and parts of ornamental plants, however, the term "reproductive material" is in addition applied to material of a type—and I emphasise the word "type"—which is used commercially for purposes of propagation in the production of ornamental plants and cut flowers. For example, if a person buys a rose bush to plant in his garden for ornamental pleasure, he is nevertheless purchasing material of a type which is used for propagation in commerce and, therefore, the label must contain the varietal name as well as the trade name. Therefore, rose bushes and other ornamental plants which are used as propagating material in the trade—but not cut blooms which are not used for that purpose—must be regarded as reproductive material, and so are subject to the requirements of the Act concerning the use of registered variety names. I think that it is desirable and proper, both for the holders of rights—whose interests deserve protection—and for the buyers of plant material, who are entitled to know what registered variety they are purchasing, that this should be the case.
With regard to the amendments themselves, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that subparagraph 2(2) was introduced, with other provisions, in order to enable the United Kingdom to comply with, and to ratify the revised text of, the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The convention requires that where a trade mark or trade name is used in association with a registered variety name the registered name must nevertheless be easily recognisable. Sub-paragraph 2(2) was drafted in order to provide that the trade mark or trade name should be given no greater prominence than the registered name.
It has been represented to the Government by the industry that the provision in the Bill as now worded is unduly onerous, and it could even be confusing to the average purchaser who would have no means of differentiating between the two names if they were given equal prominence in a label or catalogue. We have taken careful account of the industry's views and consider that they are right. Hence the amendment which stands on the Marshalled List; and we suggest, therefore, that the two names be juxtaposed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 8, column 3, after ("section 5A,") insert ("in subsection (4) the words "in connection with the registered name of a plant variety" and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Fishing Vessels (Temporary Financial Assistance) Scheme 1982
7.38 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 1st December 1982 be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this scheme provides for the fishing industry. Your Lordships will be aware of the exceptional circumstances with which our fishing fleet has had to contend; in particular, the difficulties within the European Community over reaching a satisfactory common fisheries policy have unfortunately but inevitably created a climate of uncertainty in the industry.
The Government have been conscious of this problem, and of the need to help the industry to continue to operate effectively while the negotiations proceed. The Government made special payments to the industry of £17 million in 1980 and £25 million in 1981. After a review of the costs and earnings in the industry, the Government concluded that further special aid of £15 million should be provided for 1982. The aid was announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 27th October, and the statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 1st December, It came into effect on the following day.
The scheme reflects closely the arrangements used to distribute the special payments made in 1980 and 1981. It provides for a single payment to the owners of each commercial fishing vessel which was registered in the United Kingdom fleet and available for fishing on 27th October. The scheme seeks to ensure that only vessels genuinely in the commercial fleet receive the aid, although there is provision for payment to an owner who was replacing a vessel and so had no active vessel at the crucial date.
One specific change from previous practice has been made to take account of the concern in the industry about certain vessels re-registered in our fleet, especially from Spain. The Government are taking measures to tighten the conditions for access to our fleet with the aim of permitting only genuinely British
1356
vessels to be accepted as being part of the fleet. Meanwhile, this scheme requires that in order to be eligible for aid any vessel must be crewed as to at least 75 per cent. by persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. This condition should exclude from eligibility those vessels about which concern has been expressed.
The rate of payment under the scheme depends on the length of the vessel. In response to the views of the inshore sector of the industry we have increased the share of the total payments allocated to vessels of under 60 feet in length. While it is important to ensure that the larger vessels continue to receive a fair share of the aid, we have been able to set the rates for the smaller boats at about 8 per cent. higher than a direct conversion of last year's rates would have implied.
My Lords, this scheme has been welcomed by the fishing industry. It reflects the Government's continuing commitment to the wellbeing of the fleet. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 1st December 1982 be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am sure the fishing industry are bound to be delighted with £15 million, and I think they deserve it. They have been in an uncertain state since all the argument started in the EEC. They are an industry that we have got to keep going, and I think this is the right way to do it.
There are three points that I should like to ask the noble Earl. The first one may be slightly facetious. Why the 27th October? Why not just seven months? That date is a Tuesday, if I remember rightly. It seems strange to finish the thing in the middle of the week.
In paragraph 8 it says that under the scheme no grant shall be made to any fishing vessel unless in the opinion of the appropriate Minister at least 75 per cent. of the vessel's crew were ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on that day. How can he have an opinion about 75 per cent.? It is either 75 per cent. or it is not 75 per cent. What happens if there is a crew of three? How do you get 75 per cent. of a crew of three, or a crew of two? I just wonder how you solve that one.
The other point is that the noble Earl mentioned that the Government have altered the payments downwards, making them greater towards the smaller vessels. I do not know if my calculations are correct, but if you look at the figures you find that in the payments the bigger boats have 20 times the cash potential. If you take a 200-ft, boat, it has 20 times the potential of a 50-ft, boat as far as cash is concerned, but in size it has only four times the potential. It must have been an interesting exercise, deciding the amount of payment to the various sizes of boat. I wonder if the noble Earl could expand on that. Apart from those comments, we welcome the scheme and give it our support.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for explaining the purposes of this order and for showing how these financial payments are going to fit into the programme of payments to fishing vessels over the last two to three years which has helped the fishing industry through a

1357
difficult period while the new Common Fisheries Policy for the EEC was being negotiated.
I should like to ask questions about one point concerning paragraph 8 and the question of Spanish vessels which have registered as British vessels in this country. My noble friend said that paragraph 8 was aimed to exclude them, but I wonder whether he could provide more information. There was an article in Lloyd's List on the 4th of this month, only a few days ago, which stated that there were no less than 60 of these Spanish fishing vessels registered at various ports in the United Kingdom, and it specified the ports and numbers of vessels. I would remind your Lordships that provided these vessels and the companies which own them meet various requirements, there is no legal reason why they should not operate, or there has not been in the past. For example, I understand that each vessel has to have a British skipper and a British mate. They have to meet the requirements of registration, such as having a United Kingdom company with its base in this country. I understand that they have been paying their United Kingdom taxes correctly.
The exclusion which paragraph 8 appears to make is one based on the percentage of the crew. As the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, pointed out, it is that 75 per cent. of the vessel's crew on a certain date should be ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. It is left to the Minister's opinion, and I would be perfectly ready to leave it at that myself, given that there could be approximations connected with the numbers of the crew and dividing men into bits. What I should like to ask is whether the Government and my noble friend can give an assurance that all 60 of these vessels will be excluded from these payments.
I would remind your Lordships that the existence of these vessels fishing as United Kingdom vessels has caused great resentment among the British fishing industry, because they have got round all the agreements about the quota of fish to be caught by Spanish fishing vessels, Spain not being a member of the EEC, within the 200-mile limit of the EEC. I do not need to remind my noble friend that the whole question of agreement within the EEC is difficult enough, but when one then has these additional boats, which are to all intents and purposes Spanish and not British, coming in, it naturally causes a great deal of resentment. I spoke on this in your Lordships' House and your Lordships' Select Committee on a number of occasions when I was a member of the sub-committee concerning enlargement of the EEC, and therefore concerning Spain's application.
When Spain becomes a member the whole question of the Spanish fishing fleet and how that will fit into the Common Fisheries Policy is one that will need to be negotiated. But that this should be happening now, that 60 Spanish vessels should be able to fish as if they were United Kingdom vessels, is indeed something which causes resentment. That any of them should actually receive subsidy from the Government in addition, that they should actually get financial assistance under an order such as this, really would rub salt into the wounds. So I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to assure us that not one of these vessels will be able to qualify for these payments. As this order is drafted at the moment, should any of
1358
these vessels be employing some British crew in addition to the skipper and mate, who I understand they have to employ anyway, they might be able to get round paragraph 8.
I am afraid I have not been able to give my noble friend notice of this question. I have only recently flown from Scotland, the House having resumed only yesterday, and have myself been much involved in today's business, the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill. I nonetheless hope that my noble friend will be able to give me an assurance about this matter this evening.
7.50 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was puzzled about why 27th October was the date specified. That is the date on which my right honourable friend made the announcement of the intention to pay aid and it is quite appropriate to make the basis for qualifying for aid the date which he used for the announcement. That is the reason why 27th October was chosen.
The noble Lord is also very worried about the difficulties that the rule about 75 per cent. of the crew being British will bring. I do not think that the noble Lord need be quite so worried about that because it is really a simple question of mathematics. He asked what would happen if there were only two people on the boat. In that case if one were British that would be 50 per cent. British. That would be ruled out. What happens if there are three chaps on the boat? If two are British, 66 per cent. will be British. In other words, that is under 75 per cent., so that will be ruled out. If there are four on the boat, I leave the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to make his own mathematical calculations. I do not think that there is great difficulty there.
My noble friend Lord Campbell quite rightly referred to the anxiety created about the Spanish vessels re-registering as British. We are urgently considering legislative changes to overcome this problem with the Secretary of State for Trade. The Commission is also looking into this but in the meantime everything possible is being done to ensure that ex-foreign vessels comply with United Kingdom laws. As a result of that, a number of these prosecutions have been made recently and others are pending. Our decision to refuse aid to these vessels is an earnest of our intentions. We are confident that the rules will keep out the 60 vessels from benefit under the scheme. Of course I cannot give a guarantee that that will be so because it all depends on what happens when applications come forward, but the intention of the scheme and the intention of the way in which it is drafted is that they would not be eligible for benefit.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether that means that the Government are confident that, on a particular day, a day in the past which is the qualifying day for 75 per cent. of the crew being normally resident in the United Kingdom, in all the 60 vessels at least 75 per cent. of the crew were normally resident in Britain?
Earl Ferrers: What I said I was confident about was that the scheme, which includes the requirement, among other things, for 75 per cent. of the crew to have been British on that particular date, and all the other things which had to apply on that particular day, will result in those 60 vessels not being applicable for grant.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.54 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert (" and on a date determined by the Secretary of State by order all reference to persons suffering from mental handicap shall be omitted from the Act.")
The noble Lord said: Mention was made of this amendment when we discussed the last amendment on the confusion in respect of "mental deficiency" and "mental handicap". I supported the Government: a change has been made and "mental handicap" is now the phrase, and I hope remains the phrase, to describe those who hitherto have been labelled "mentally deficient". I want to add to the end of Clause 6 another phrase,
"and on a date determined by the Secretary of State by order all reference to persons suffering from mental handicap shall be omitted from the Act."
People who are suffering from mental handicap are not mentally ill. They are mentally handicapped, which they may well have been from birth or from an accident, but they are not mentally ill. They are people who are not able to be cured of that disorder. It is not a mental illness, it is a handicap; and from that point of view it has been some people's feeling for a long time that, as the change has been made in England, the mentally handicapped should be dealt with in a Bill of their own. Because changes would need to be made in legislation which might take some time, I have not stipulated a date by which it would have to be done in respect of Scotland, because it means gathering together suitable legislation in respect of handicap and putting that into a separate Bill. Instead, I have said that,
"on a date determined by the Secretary of State by order",
this shall be done. It is not a year. It is not 18 months. It is not two years. I know that there are difficulties about it, but the power to do it will be there and the work can be done by the Scottish Office until such time as there is an opportunity for making this change, and then it shall be put before Parliament. I am sure that that would meet the wishes of most people concerned and it would meet the practical needs of the Government in respect of parliamentary legislative timetables. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, spoke to his amendment on the last occasion, when Amendment No. 24 was discussed, and I also spoke at length. I do not think that I can really say very much more. What I have tried to say is that, although one has considerable sympathy with the relatives and those who are concerned with the mentally handicapped, I do not think the mentally handicapped themselves either know or care what is
1360
the legislation which affects them. The great mass of the public at large do not read the statutes and I do not suppose they appreciate that, for the purposes of legislation—although the provisions are similar in many cases and therefore it is convenient—the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped are the subject of legislation together. If they know it at all, they must realise that there is a complete difference as between these and the other provisions, except in such matters as the function of the Mental Welfare Commission.
What this comes to is whether we should legislate in this way in the hope that on some future occasion a Secretary of State will make the necessary order, realising, as I have said, that he will have had to work to produce a massive Bill which will take into effect all the legislation which has been more or less embodied in the 1960 Act. I believe it would be a mistake to do that. It would arouse public expectation. I think that there would be continuous pressure on the Secretary of State of the day to review all the processes which would have to be gone through before the legislation could be brought forward. It would be, in a way, unkind to the relatives of the mentally handicapped to engender hope or make them believe that there was an imminent change in the law when, in fact, as I have tried to tell the Committee, there is no imminent change, and we all know it. As I have said, the resources are simply not available to do this. In the circumstances, I have considerable sympathy with what is behind the amendment but for the reasons I have given I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: While I do not dissent from what my noble friend has said, whatever may be happening south of the Border I am not convinced that we need separate legislation for mentally handicapped people as compared with those who are mentally ill. However, I feel I must say something because some of your Lordships may recall that I was chairman for Scotland in the International Year of Disabled People in 1981, and one of the messages I was receiving, particularly through a publication of mine and also in other articles and speeches, concerned the difference between those who are mentally ill and those who are mentally handicapped.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that this difference has not been known in the past. Both categories of person, if they are severely affected, are disabled, but their condition—I speak in the presence of at least one medically qualified person, and I hope he will not mind my saying this as a layman—and normally their treatment, is quite different. At the beginning of the International Year I was disappointed to find so many people among the public I met or addressed at meetings who would say afterwards that they did not understand what I meant by the difference between mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I think the message is getting through, and it is important for everyone connected with both categories, but particularly for those who are mentally handicapped and who will be like it all their lives, and their relatives.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, but I do not think that

1361
completely separate legislation is required in Scotland for the category of mentally handicapped.
Lord Winstanley: I very much agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and it therefore follows that I agree with much of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I do not want to go into the merits of the argument about the precise wording that is used, but in the earlier measure which we dealt with in your Lordships' House relating to England and Wales we spent a great deal of time on this particular matter, and the arguments were developed at great length. I think that noble Lords were satisfied by the force of the arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred to the fact that as regards England and Wales we have taken certain steps to make this differentiation, which we regard as important. In replying to an earlier amendment the noble Earl stated quite categorically that there is not the slightest reason why people in Scotland should necessarily feel obliged to do the same as in England and Wales. If the Scots wish to do something differently, why not? Why not, indeed? I am poking my half-English nose into Scottish affairs; but perhaps I may suggest that the other half is Scottish, and as an excuse for intervening I could perhaps claim to be the only Member of your Lordships' Committee to have played "The Earl of Mansfield's March" on the bagpipes at the Braemar Gathering. I therefore have some kind of right to say something.
If in this Scottish Bill we are to do something differently and are to use words that are substantially different from words used for England and Wales, the obligation rests on the Minister who is dealing with the Bill to give the reasons for that. If things are to be done differently (and I am not saying that they should not be) the onus rests on those in charge of the Bill to say why they are taking a slightly different course from that which your Lordships adopted in relation to the other measure. I hope that the noble Earl can say a little more on why we should deal with this matter differently.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: All I want to say is that I support the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in this matter. After all, the amendment says that it is up to the Secretary of State to act when he can, and I believe that there is no harm in giving people hope. I do not believe that this would raise their hopes too much or too quickly, because the amendment does not say that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am disappointed that the Minister has given the very old reply that the people just do not know which Bill these measures are in, or what Act of Parliament. I do not know whether many Members of your Lordships' Committee know which Act of Parliament is concerned. Actually, it is not one Act of Parliament. We have given a lot of attention to this. We have made advances in the early detection of handicap, and have placed responsibility for that on the local authorities and health authorities. We find this in changes made in recent years for the mentally
1362
handicapped as regards education and pre-school education. We are not referring to one Act, but are taking them out of three or four Acts. I do not regard the 1960 Act as a massive Act. I have sufficient knowledge of the Scottish Office to have confidence in its ability to extract the mentally handicapped from it and, if necessary, to extract from the Education Acts those aspects concerning the mentally handicapped in respect of which they are singled out for special treatment in education, and to put that all into one Bill.
The people who know the difficulties about legislation are the parents of the mentally handicapped. They are the people who have never taken an interest in it, like many Members of Parliament and many Members of your Lordships' House, and who suddenly find it affects them, their families and their lives and who try to scramble through all sorts of pieces of legislation. They then discover that the main part deals with what used to be called the "insane". I do not suppose we are going back to that term, although for a moment I saw the Minister wavering in respect of "mental defective". When we used that more readily it was "lunatics", and "mental defectives". We got away from "lunatics", and it is now "mental illness". There is a difference.
The other point is that they will still be connected with the Mental Health Bill, because like everyone else the mentally handicapped can suffer from mental illness; but we are treating them in the same way as we are treating other people. I become more convinced of this the more I hear the kind of arguments we get from the Minister about the massive nature of the task. That is absolute nonsense. We can do this quite well. We can extract the mentally handicapped from the Bill and they can have their own Bill in our own time, or in the Secretary of State's own time, although I trust it will not be all that long.
I can remember that Scotland took the right to raise the school leaving age to 16 in 1918, but it was not done until 1946. The action was not exactly immediate. We are being reasonable in suggesting that, given a reasonable amount of time, to be determined by the Secretary of State, this change should be made. The change has been made elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and while we do not glory always in the difference, is there any reason in this case why the mentally handicapped should not be treated in the same way in England and in Scotland? That has been the tendency as regards new legislation. I see no reason why we should differ in respect of this matter. The Minister will know that this was urged upon him during the discussions which took place prior to the Bill. The argument put forward then was confusion, the massive nature of the matter and no real gain. The same was said about changing "mental defective" to "mentally handicapped", but the Government were convinced by the pressure.
I do not want to divide the Committee on this matter, certainly not at this stage. I want to give the Government time to think about it and to make some assessment of the views of those in Scotland who are interested in the problem. We are not asking for the impossible; we are being very reasonable in what we are doing. I do not know whether the Minister has anything more to say, or whether he can give me any

1363
heart about the matter. However, I assure him that if I withdraw this amendment today I shall put it down again at the next stage of the Bill, hoping that the House will then be a little less crowded than it is at present so that there will be more opportunity for more people to urge their case!
Meanwhile, I am very grateful for what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. We recognise his special interest in this matter, and we are very much aware of the work that he did during that momentous International Year of Disabled People. I wish to express my thanks, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his remarks. He also knows something about this matter and probably, if we take the neutral voice of the neutral half "Noes", we might be coming to the right conclusion. If the Minister has nothing more to say I shall certainly withdraw the amendment, but I promise him that he will see it again and hear from us again on this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, leave out lines 39 to 42.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26. The subsection in question appears to me to cast the reflection on the medical profession that they are putting into hospital those who are, in fact, suffering not from mental disorder but from other defects of character. I do not quite know whether it is not satisfactorily worded or whether I fully understand the intention. It is true that people suffering from mental disorder are sometimes, and perhaps not infrequently, promiscuous. That is very undesirable because the progeny may also be slightly unbalanced in mind. It is also true that people who depend greatly on alcohol and on drugs may eventually suffer from mental disorders. But I am not quite certain that that is really what the subsection is intended to cover. It may be the other way round, that there are occasions on which hospitals are used as drying out institutions. That is clearly a misuse of a hospital.
I thought I understood from the recent Criminal Justice Act that there were going to be special institutions or special arrangements for people to dry out. I am not certain whether that is correct. However, I suggest that the wording here needs some change because it is casting on certain medical officers the aspersion that they are misusing hospitals intended for either the mentally ill or possibly even mentally disabled people, and using them for purposes for which they were not intended. If that is so it could possibly be a matter that should be dealt with by the medical authorities themselves. However, the wording at present is:
"under this Act as suffering from mental disorder".
It looks accordingly as though someone is making a misstatement. I do not know whether it is true or not. I am not clear what exactly is the purpose of this clause.
The Earl of Mansfield: The Scottish definition of "mental disorder", which is set out in Section 6 of the
1364
principal Act, says that "mental disorder" means mental illness or mental handicap however caused or manifested. That means that no person who exhibits promiscuous, immoral, deviant or addictive behaviour should for that reason alone be taken to be mentally disordered. Such behaviour may be symptomatic of mental disorder but it does not by itself constitute evidence of mental disorder.
Let me say at once that it is not strictly necessary for the provision in Clause 6(2) to be made. Indeed, it has been taken from the English Act. But there was thought to be an advantage in having this clear statement of principle incorporated into the legislation. People may not appreciate the full implications of the definition of "mental disorder", and I do not think that it does any harm to ensure that the law is perfectly clear on this point. However, one point that I would mention to my noble friend is that certainly nobody intends to cast any aspersions upon the medical profession.
The Earl of Selkirk: It clearly suggests that people are improperly put into hospital. I would only ask my noble friend to look at it to see whether the words could be changed. Am I correct in thinking that hospitals have been used as drying out institutions for people who are not mentally disabled but who are suffering from other defects? Is that what it is trying to get at? If it is, then I think that the wording could be changed to make the intention clearer. I am not very-happy with the wording as it stands. I have no particular desire to protect the medical profession, but it is suggested that hospitals are being misused. That may be the case, and if it is I should have thought that the subsection could be worded in slightly different terms.
The Earl of Mansfield: I think that I had better take the matter away and make some inquiries as to why it was considered necessary to have this declaratory subsection. It may be that it would be better out, but I shall see what I can do.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am very grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The important point to remember is that it concerns not just those who are detained in hospital, but those people who were encouraged after the 1960 Act to go into hospital as voluntary patients. There could be abuse by people going into hospital because they are alcoholics—they are not suffering from a mental illness but they are alcoholics. We all know that it happens. I have even heard them referred to as "weekend visitors". They go in as voluntary patients and then discharge themselves, and probably reappear in another two or three months. Is it purely a matter of dependence on alcohol or drugs? The point which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, makes is very relevant. Maybe there is the implication that they are being treated when, according to the Act, they should not be treated, because that will certainly be the case if we pass this clause as it stands. I sincerely hope that the Minister will look very carefully at the implications as regards not only people detained, but treatment that can be given to voluntary patients in respect of both drugs and alcohol.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said. It seems to me that there is a broad suggestion that hospitals are being misused. I do not think that we should say that in a statute. However, in view of what my noble friend says, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 29:
Page 4, line 4, leave out (" "severely mentally impaired" ") and insert (" "protected by the provisions of this section" ")
Page 4, line 5, after ("impaired";") insert—
("(aa) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6A) A woman is protected by the provisions of this section if she is suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning.";")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships' Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 together, because I understand that Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 have been removed from the Marshalled List. Section 96 of the principal Act which we find amended by subsection (3) of Clause 6, makes provision for the protection of those whom it describes as "female defectives".
The amendments to Section 96, which are set out in the Bill, are intended to retain the protection but to replace the term "a defective" and, above all, the definition of that term. In wishing to do this, unfortunately and quite unintentionally, the use of the term—which we would quote and which your Lordships may see in Amendment No. 27—"severely mentally impaired", relying as it does on the definition of that term which is to be inserted into the Act by paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to the Bill, would restrict the protection offered at the moment by Section 96 to only those very few mentally handicapped females who are liable to compulsory admission to hospital.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 will be to restore and, indeed, we hope, to extend very slightly the protection which Section 96 affords against sexual abuse or exploitation of mentally handicapped females. With that brief, and I hope not too complicated explanation, I beg to move, if it is in order, Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("After Care.
. In section 7 of the principal Act there shall be added after subsection (1) a new subsection as follows:
"(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of the said section 27 the relevant authority in each area shall in respect of those who are or have been suffering from mental illness make provision for an after-care service and that service shall meet the requirements laid down by the Mental Welfare Commission of Scotland." ")
The noble Lord said: I am here proposing an important new clause. The Minister of State or, indeed, some other members of the Committee, may
1366
not be entirely happy with the wording, but I think that the general principle will be acceptable, if not to the Government, to everyone else. The clause insists that in each area there shall, in respect of those who are or have been suffering from mental illness, be suitable provision for an after-care service.
Earlier in the Committee stage I referred to the number of patients who leave hospital and who, because of lack of attention and after-care service, which is really essential, before very long find themselves back in hospital. It is probably a question of home treatment; it may well be a question of discipline. But there is no doubt at all that we require an after-care service which will pay for itself by keeping people out of hospital.
I understand that an after-care service is now mandatory in the English scene. Please do not let us have: "Because England has it, should Scotland have it?"; we have had enough of that today. It is common sense. This is the kind of thing we need. I sincerely hope that the Government will think so too.
It may be that the Government will object to requirements laid down by the Mental Welfare Commission of Scotland. I do not necessarily stick to that possibility. It could be the Secretary of State who lays them down. After all, in the long run he is responsible for the services of the local authorities. This is something that would be done by the local authorities and so, if the Government think that it would be far better to have this laid down by the Secretary of State as part of the local government functions of local authorities, then I am prepared to agree to that and would gladly withdraw the amendment so that that change could be made at a later stage.
But I must insist on this. If we care, if we want to protect and help those suffering from mental illness, let us not have them leave hospital in the sure and certain knowledge that, without proper after-care service, they will be back in hospital within two or three months. I beg to move.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to comment on this. In the many years during which I was chairman of a health committee and a social work committee, after-care was the most important thing we had to do. We used to spend an enormous amount of time and trouble either getting the social work department to deal with this—because mostly it was that department that did so—or getting the help of voluntary organisations interested in mental health and in the after-care of mental patients. I am sure that it would be to the advantage of any local authority or health authority dealing with this aspect to know that no one leaves a mental hospital of any kind without the health committee or the health authority in the area being notified, and being absolutely certain that from that moment there is someone available to supervise, look after and care for that person, to ensure that he will not return to hospital, which otherwise is almost inevitable.
I beg the Government to include this facility in the Bill and to make it perfectly certain that we have the same after-care service in Scotland as is available under the English Act—such after-care as will prevent people returning to hospital.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I moved an amendment in your Lordships' House concerning after-care when we were discussing the English Bill, and Amendment No. 88 which comes later is really the same amendment. However, there is a need for after-care for all mentally ill patients when they are discharged. As I am sure the noble Earl knows, many of them are schizophrenic, and when they are in hospital they are given treatment. Often when they leave hospital they throw away their tablets or do not take them and then all the problems return and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, they find themselves back in hospital again. Therefore, it is essential to provide an after-care service for them; at the same time, by keeping them out of hospital, money would be saved. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: In order that the noble Earl will be aware that the feeling on this particular matter is the same in all parts of your Lordships' Committee, I, too, should like to support what has been said. We have seen a change in attitudes towards the mentally ill throughout the whole of Britain in all its component parts. There has been a move away from the idea of hospitalisation and institutionalised care for the mentally ill, and suddenly community care has become the kind of popular catchphrase: that, provided these people are in the community, there is a general feeling that all is well; that we can close down the big institutions and make them smaller and smaller as long as people are cared for in the community.
That is all very well, but it is only all very well if you actually supply services of the kind which are necessary in the community to enable those people to remain in the community in a satisfactory condition. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and others, if we spend an enormous amount of money, as we do, on hospital care for many of these cases—the schizophrenics to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred—and allow them to go home without the kind of support and after-care which they need, we are merely pouring those hospital resources down the drain. I think that the noble Earl should be under no illusions that this is a matter of desperate importance, and I am quite sure he will find that all Members in all parts of your Lordships' Committee feel the same about it.
The Earl of Mansfield: I can be brief in my reply to what has been said. It may help save time if I anticipate what I imagine the noble Baroness is going to say in support of Amendment No. 88. The Government accept that a specific provision in relation to after-care should be included in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has it right in seeking to include the provision in Section 7 of the principal Act and that it should apply to all mental patients. The draftsmen do not altogether like his wording, but if he will withdraw the amendment for now I shall undertake to come forward with a Government amendment at a later stage to give effect in substantial measure to what is proposed both in this Amendment No. 31 and in Amendment No. 88.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We have to thank the Minister of State for that response. I am sure it was in
1368
the knowledge that there was a blast coming both from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, that he said: "I had better sort out these civil servants and make them change their minds about this. But don't worry, we will get away with it. We will blame Ross's words and get our own in". We shall watch these new words carefully, because there are times when we do not like the draftsman's words. When it comes to the examination of the new words I am sure I shall have the help of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as well, because the pair of us are getting more and more suspicious with every line we read of this Bill.
I thank the Government for appreciating the feelings of the Committee in respect of the importance of, and the need for, after-care. In view of what the noble Earl says, I gladly help him by withdrawing the amendment, and eagerly look forward to the acceptance he has given us in principle of the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to tell the Committee that I have overlooked a mistake in the marshalling because Amendment No. 32 is not in fact an amendment to Clause 7. It is an amendment to Clause 6, and should have been taken before Amendment No. 31.
Clause 6 [Definition of "mental disorder"]:
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) After subsection (2) of section 7 of the principal Act there shall be inserted—
"(2A) (a) It shall be the duty of each Local Authority to present to the Secretary of State by such date as he will order made by statutory instrument appoint, and again five years after that date and so on at intervals of five years, a Mental Health Care Plan for their area.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, each Local Authority shall appoint a Planning Group which shall include as members of it, representatives of the Health Board or Boards with responsibility for the area and appropriate Voluntary Organisations within the area. In appointing persons to that group, the Local Authority shall have regard to such matters as the Secretary of State may direct.
(c) In preparing a Mental Health Care Plan for the purpose of this subsection, it shall be the duty of a Planning Group to consider such matters as the Secretary of State may direct.".").
The noble Baroness said: It is with some diffidence that I intervene in a purely Scottish affair, but needs must since my noble friend Lord Taylor is at this moment extolling the virtues of Robbie Burns somewhere or other, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, is snowed up in Scotland and cannot get down. Therefore, I am afraid that I have to be a rather inadequate substitute for the pair of them.
In moving this amendment, we feel that it would be helpful to the Scottish Office and all those concerned if the local authorities were asked to review their services. We ask only that the local authority shall appoint a planning group, and that that planning group shall include representatives of the authority, of the health board, and of the voluntary organisations concerned with looking after these people. It is something that local authorities do in most other

1369
fields. They have forward planning departments. They know that perhaps the resources are not available to do everything as they want, but they have at least got a plan to work to. What we suggest is that the local authority should form one of these planning groups for this purpose; that they should look at the services they see as being appropriate for their areas, and, even if they cannot implement them immediately, they can at least work towards them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: This amendment seems to me to duplicate arrangements which already exist for co-operation between local authorities, health boards and voluntary organisations, not just for the mentally disordered but across the wide spectrum of health care provided in hospitals of various kinds and in the community for different client groups. Under Section 20 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, health boards and local authorities already have a statutory duty to co-operate with one another. In 1977, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in a circular addressed to local authorities and health boards, strongly supported the setting up of Joint Liaison Committees between health boards and local authorities. This was one of a number of recommendations made by a working party, comprising representatives of health boards, local authorities and the Scottish Office, which was set up in 1975 to examine the pattern of relationships between health boards and local government and to advise on any special arrangements which might facilitate or improve the relationship.
In all parts of the country the local authorities and health boards already co-operate with one another in a constructive manner. In most areas formal Joint Liaison Committees have indeed been set up, with representatives of both the local authorities and the health boards, and these bodies advise on the planning and operation of services of common concern to both types of authority. These services, of course, include those in the fields of mental illness and mental handicap, where both the health and social work agencies have statutory responsibilities. Under the existing arrangements, it is already open to the Joint Liaison Committee to set up working groups to advise the Committee on particular issues of joint concern such as those to which this amendment refers, and in a number of instances this has indeed been done.
In my view it is unnecessary and almost unreasonable to make further statutory provision the effect of which will be to duplicate the existing machinery for consultation, which has not been running for a very long time. Furthermore, I think it would be wrong to impose on local authorities specific additional duties which would have expensive resource implications, and, for those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Earl. Our information is that there are not very considerable resource implications in establishing such a planning board within the local authorities. I am sure that my noble friend will want to read what the noble Earl has said in Hansard tomorrow, and at this point of time I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee has already agreed that Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part, and we come to Clause 7, Amendment No. 33.
Clause 7 [Appointment and functions of mental health officers]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("officers") and insert ("persons")
The noble Lord said: It is nice to rise to move an amendment that you know is going to be accepted. I am perfectly sure that the Government will accept it, because if they look at line 30 they will see:
"In considering the appointment of a person as a mental health officer."
They are not officers. They are not officers until they are appointed. They are persons first. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am not going to quarrel with the noble Lord. I will accept his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("officers") and insert ("approved Social Workers")
Baroness Stedman: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, and may I at the same time speak to No. 41, which is really on the same subject. We feel that it is important that the mental health officers—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am afraid that this amendment cannot be moved because Amendment No. 34 has already taken the word "officers" out and put in "persons".
Baroness Stedman: I beg your pardon.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 16, after ("be") insert ("so")
The noble Lord said: This is really another piece of drafting, if we take it with the next amendment. Instead of saying,
"no person shall be appointed"—
there is the justification again for the change to "persons": the Government themselves use it—
"as a mental health officer unless",
That would be far better if it read,
"no person shall be so appointed unless".
It is purely drafting. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I agree with the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("as a mental health officer")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: This, I understand, has been wrongly printed. It should be, "leave out 'as a mental health officer'."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: If this amendment is made the provision will read:
"no person shall be so appointed … unless he is approved by the … Secretary of State"
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who has shown considerable interest in the Bill, was not able to deal with Amendment No. 35 and the question of approved social workers. That term was used in the English Bill. It was considered in relation to Scotland, but it was decided to stick to the existing wording.
I pointed out on Second Reading that the wording here does not really make sense with the modern local government set-up. Under the 1960 Act the local health authority was dominated by the medical officer of health, who had medical officers under him, and he designated some of them as mental health officers. Today that task is being done by the social work department. They are not even social work officers, but are just social workers. The government discovered that more or less anyone in the social work department was being given the authority of a mental health officer. The position is not satisfactory yet, in my view, and I have sought to improve it by ensuring that those who will be doing the important tasks performed by mental health officers shall be qualified and competent; so the public will have a certain measure of guarantee by the reference to the Secretary of State in this provision.
The local authority is the body which has transgressed hitherto by appointing in many cases anybody at all from the social work department to become a mental health officer, without any qualification or training for that very important task. That is why I suggest that, from our experience of local government in relation to mental health officers, it would be far better to have it in the hands of, and approved by, the Secretary of State. That is the reason for and effect of the amendment, which I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: The effect of the amendment would be to transfer from local authorities to the Secretary of State the responsibility for approving persons who are to be appointed as mental health officers as having appropriate competence in dealing with persons suffering from mental disorder. As the clause stands, no person is to be appointed a mental health officer unless he is approved by the local authority as having appropriate competence. So the question is whether it is to be the local authority or the Secretary of State who makes the decision.
It may be helpful if I explain that we have in mind two main concerns in relation to the appointment of mental health officers. The first is that they should be approved by their employer, the local authority, as having appropriate competence in dealing with
1372
persons who are mentally disordered. The second is that in considering the appointment of a person as a mental health officer a local authority should have regard to centrally determined minimum qualifications and standards of experience and competence. These will be the matters in relation to which the Secretary of State will give directions.
Consultation is taking place with professional and training bodies about the qualifications, training and experience which mental health officers should have, and guidance will be issued to local authorities in due course in the light of this consultation. Local authorities will be directed to have regard to this guidance, but will be able to appoint as a mental health officer anyone who is approved as having "appropriate competence". I feel sure that local authorities will welcome these guidelines because they will help to ensure that all mental health officers undertaking duties under the measure have received adequate specialised training and are experienced in dealing with mental disorder.
I should at this point stress that we are talking about guidelines, not about rules. Individual authorities will be able to work out the details of their local training programmes. But the new provisions will have real meaning only if all the local authorities concerned apply similar standards in approving social workers as mental health officers. Those are the Government's intentions, and I hope that, in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I shall be able to withdraw it, though I am slightly troubled about a few other drafting matters to which we will come later and which relate to the possibility that we shall have different standards throughout the country. As the noble Earl said, they are guidelines—there will be nothing statutory about them—so that local authorities need only "have regard" to them. This is so important a matter that we want the standards to be set by the Secretary of State and those standards to be followed by the local authorities. Perhaps we should wait to see what the guidelines are. The noble Earl suggested that it would be up to the local authorities as to whether they accepted the guidelines and standards, and he hoped there would be uniformity of standards. We must go beyond that if we are really concerned about the matter.
Lord Winstanley: My knowledge of this subject is related much more to what is now happening in England and Wales than to what happens in Scotland, but my understanding is that this arose largely as a result of the Seebohm Report and the move to what are called generic social workers instead of specialist social workers in different fields. At one time, mental health officers and social workers doing mental health work had a detailed training. We then moved to a situation in England and Wales in which all social workers were "social workers"—full-stop. Some of them happened to look after children, others looked after the mentally ill, and so on.
My understanding of the present situation in England and Wales is that there has been substantial progress recently in redefining the training and

1373
qualifications of those appointed to be social workers in the mental health field. I wish to underline the request of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that in all parts of Britain we proceed in a uniform way; one would not want one part of the nation to have mental health workers with less specific training than those in another part.
I therefore hope that when we return to the subject, as we no doubt shall, the Minister will be in a position to say precisely what is the present state of play in Scotland with regard to the negotiations which have been going on with those responsible for the profession of social workers—many noble Lords have had a great deal to do with the progress which has been made recently with training schemes; for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has done a great deal of work in that sphere—to provide for a uniform qualification in relation to the amount of training actually done. I hope the noble Earl will then be in a position to tell us that Scotland's standards will be every bit as high as those standards which, I understand, must apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Selkirk: My amendment, to which we shall come next, is concerned with exactly the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. The social worker with whom we are concerned here is a vitally important element. He is the man whom the local authority immediately puts in touch with someone who may require attention. He it is who, I suppose, collects two doctors to get their certificate and who then makes the application; and apparently he must make the application whether or not he likes it. This is a peculiar arrangement.
What I should like to know is this. I have put down two words—and it is merely a question of emphasis. They are "competence" and "capacity"; that is to say, whether a man is qualified or whether a man has a special ability to do the job. What are the qualifications? What sort of men (or women, for that matter) are you getting for this important job? They are not qualified doctors, they are not registered nurses. Have they any specific qualifications? This matter of protecting and handling people who through illness of some kind are of unbalanced mind is very difficult. Some people have a gift for it; others do not. In my mind it is difficult to conceive of a short training to enable a man to fulfil what I feel to be a fundamental role in the whole working of our system. I wonder whether we can be given any enlightenment. It is quite true that directions will be given. One can give directions, but how can one achieve the recruitment of someone who must hold the confidence of most of the community and, indeed, of the patient? I take it that it is meant to be that he should be personally acquainted with the patient. That is very difficult. There will not be many such. I should be very glad to have a little enlightenment on this important matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken. I think that they appreciate the complexity. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, appreciates that we started off in the 1960 Act under a different local government set-up in which the medical officer of health really was
1374
something. Then local government was re-organised, and the importance of the medical officer of health was very considerably changed, many of his services being spread over different authorities. But then you have to add the fact that there was a change made—I think it was in 1967; I should know because I was the Secretary of State who instituted it—when we introduced a social work Act in Scotland. Under that they took over tasks that used to be specific tasks. There used to be a children's committee, and there was no longer a children's committee; and there used to be a welfare committee, and there was no longer a welfare committee. They were all under the one, and that one was the social work committee.
In Scotland, more so than in England, there was the general term of "social work" and general training for social work even to the extent that you do not have in England. Probation officers in Scotland come under the social work department. I think that in England they are still separate and come under the Home Office. This is what makes me worried about whether or not there has been some failure to follow through all the changes in function of local government and, now, the new changes in function of the medical officer of health which stem form a different set-up altogether.
Knowing the set-up of social work historically, I am concerned about this. Are we in Scotland going to break away now from general social work? Are we going to have someone specialised in a particular field? This is what I want to know. It may well be that the person who is carrying out the after-care service—which I hope will be adequately provided for—or some other kind of service with those who are mentally ill will require more than one type of specialism because of the type of problem that will arise.
I will withdraw this amendment, where I seek to lay the responsibility on the Secretary of State. I will leave it with the local authority and hope that we will be able to get from the Minister of State a lucid explanation that will satisfy us all in respect of the training that will be given. I have another amendment which deals with the question about competence and capacity raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk; it concerns the word "appropriate". I will not speak about it now, but will beg leave to withdraw this particular amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("appropriate")
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to leave out the word "appropriate". I think it is otiose and useless to specify "appropriate" competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder. They either have competence or they have not got competence. The word "appropriate" does not add anything. I suggest that we leave it out. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am prepared to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("competence") and insert ("capacity")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment

1375
No. 40. I have really spoken to this. I wonder whether we can possibly elicit a little explanation. I admit that my amendment is purely a "fishing" amendment. There is a slight difference of emphasis between "competence" and "capacity". "Competence" indicates to me that a person has the qualification and "capacity" that the person has the ability to do the job. I would not pretend that there is a wider difference than that. This is a key point, as I see it, in this whole Bill, which turns on the quality of people who can fulfil this role. At the moment my mind is absolutely blank as to who that person is. I can think of friends who are good at it; and those who are not. There are perhaps not so many in the world who are able to fulfil this extremely delicate social task. I wonder whether we can expand a little upon this, if not now, then later on. It is really a most important appointment and the essence of this Bill will fall to the ground if we do not get the right people.
Lord Airedale: I do not think I would quarrel with the word "competence" in this context, though, if it were to be changed, I think that "capability" would perhaps be a better alternative than "capacity". But I really do not quarrel with the word "competence".
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: Having run a social work committee for a number of years, and a children's committee as well, and dealt with people who came from mental hospitals, I would assure my noble friend Lord Selkirk that in no circumstances would anyone be appointed to that job who was not a trained social worker with, very often, training in dealing with mental patients. At no point was any amateur or anyone who could just be described as "good with people" appointed to a post of that kind. It was extremely carefully advertised; people were interviewed and the whole thing was done in the most professional way possible. Certainly in the area where I operated, we would never have appointed anybody who was not absolutely first-class at this difficult job. I hope very much that that standard (which I am bound to say applied up to the year 1975) is continuing. It is certainly so in the area where I lived and where the social work department was responsible for these things. They are all trained people with great experience. Far from the word "competence", or whatever it is that people are putting forward, I would use the word "trained". What is needed is social work training, and it certainly takes three or four years before anybody should be allowed to undertake a job as important as this.
The Earl of Mansfield: If I may first of all reply to the actual narrow amendment of my noble friend, "competence" is the right word because one can have the capacity to do something and yet not be competent until one has been trained. If one has not the capacity, one is unlikely ever to become competent. That is the essential difference.
What I can tell the Committee regarding subsection (3) of this clause is that a working party is at present working on the guidelines. The working party consists of representatives of the Association of Directors of Social Work, the Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Workers and the British Associ-
1376
ation of Social Workers. My department is also represented. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the working party is keeping a close eye on what is going on in England. The matter is being taken seriously. Between this stage and the next I shall make further inquiries, and if I can then help I shall do so. In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend will agree that "competence" is the right word in this particular instance.
The Earl of Selkirk: I shall not press this matter, but we have not learned a great deal. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood told us that training in the Borders is of a high order.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: Everywhere.
The Earl of Selkirk: Maybe everywhere. May I ask what certificate people get at the end of training? How do we know what the qualifications are? Who does the training? Is it a university or medical course? Do they give a certificate at the end of it?
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: Yes, it is a university course. They give a degree.
The Earl of Selkirk: I did not realise that. I should be interested to know whether all social health workers have a degree from a university. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us about this at a later date. I shall now withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 42
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("In considering the appointment of') and insert ("Before appointing").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps we can take Amendm Amendment No. 42 together with Amendment No. 43.
The Earl of Mansfield: I would rather not do so.
Lord Ross of Marnoek: Then we shall take them separately. I suppose the Minister will accept the first one because it is purely drafting. But, for the weakness of this subsection, one has to read it as a whole:
"(3) In considering the appointment of a person as a mental health officer, a local authority shall have regard to …"
It does not say they "must" but they "shall have regard to". To my mind that is weak. I do not think that the phrase "in considering" is right, as the Secretary of State may direct. I suggest that we leave out "In considering the appointment" and insert "Before appointing". That will be much more decisive. I also consider that we should leave out:
"… shall have regard to such matters …"
and insert—and I hope this will please the heart of the noble Earl—the following:
"ensure that the person has the qualifications, experience and competence in respect of dealing with mental disorder and such other matters as the Secretary of State may direct."
That will be much clearer and nearer the type of question that has been sought from the noble Earl about qualifications than we have in the rather weak, watery words that are in subsection (3). I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am prepared to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 31, leave out from ("shall") to ("matters") in line 32, and insert "ensure that the person has the qualifications, ex[experience and competence in respect of dealing with mental disorder and such other").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am with the noble Lord in principle, but the draftsmen are not wholly with him. If he will withdraw the amendment I shall take it away and produce something else.
Lord Ross of Marnock: If the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, allows me to withdraw the amendments, I shall gladly withdraw them. I know he is very anxious to see qualifications, experience and competence all tied together. That being so, and having had the right nod of the head from the Bench opposite, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 45, after ("required") insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment, but I recollect that somewhere else in the Bill we are insisting on somebody who agrees to something doing so in writing. I do not think that there is anything more important than a relative agreeing to someone being detained in a mental hospital. From the point of view of the safeguard of other people concerned it would not be a bad idea that we should put the words "in writing" in the Bill, so that it will read:
"It shall be the duty of a local authority, if so required in writing by the nearest relative".
They may well agree to it and then subsequently deny that. But the proof would be there in writing. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: The effect of this amendment would be to require the nearest relative to apply to the local authority in writing. Most relatives in this predicament are faced with the urgent need to make an application, and they are more likely to make it by telephone or in person; therefore it would be inappropriate to require this application to be in writing. Indeed, it would negate the purpose of the provision. The whole point is to ensure that a nearest relative can obtain help when he or she may well be uncertain as to the steps to take. One has to visualise the situation where the nearest relative will probably be in some emotional state. He or she will probably have undergone an experience which will not be very pleasant and is therefore driven to make the application.
I would impress upon the noble Lord what I am sure he knows very well already—that this is the beginning of quite a long chain of proceedings. There is therefore no question of somebody being taken away from his home or wherever it is and incarcerated in a mental hospital, without proper regard being had to his rights, interests and welfare. So I really do not think there is any particular point in making an application in
1378
writing in such circumstances, and, as I have said, it may well negate the whole point of the subsection.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Minister has been at his most persuasive. I gladly agree to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("his admission to hospital") and insert ("admission or a guardianship application in respect of the patient").
The noble Earl said: A patient's nearest relative may be in doubt as to how to set about making an application under the 1960 Act, or may prefer that a mental health officer should make the application if he is prepared to do so. The new subsection which is inserted into Section 26 of the principal Act by paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of Clause 7 will enable a patient's nearest relative to require a local authority to direct a mental health officer to take the patient's case into consideration with a view to making an application for admission to hospital. There are, however, two kinds of application: applications for admission and guardianship applications. The nearest relative may require help with either kind, and the amendment will extend the provision to cover both. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("nevertheless").
The noble Lord said: We can make sense out of this only if we take Nos. 47, 48 and 49 together for discussion. The matter was raised by one of your Lordships concerning surprise that a mental health officer has to make an application for the detention of someone in hospital even though he himself thinks that the application should not be made. I, too, feel that this is quite wrong. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who drew attention to this. What I have done, therefore, is, in the first amendment, to leave out the word "nevertheless", and, in the second amendment, to leave out the words
"the application; and it shall include—".
Therefore, the wording should now read:
"… but who is of the opinion that such an application should not be made shall make:

(a) a statement that in the opinion of the mental health officer the application should not be approved; and

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

We then add a new subsection:
"Where a mental health officer considers that an application should not be made the application may be made by the medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 27 of this Act.".
I think it would be quite wrong that an approved social worker or a mental health officer should be placed in a position in which, although he disagrees that an application for detention of someone in hospital must be made, he must make it, although he says that it should not be made and is not necessary. I think in a case like that you have to relieve the mental health officer of that obligation and ensure that something should be done on medical advice or on overwhelming advice—although the decision is eventually to be made by the sheriff—and then the medical practitioner should be allowed to make the application. Then, when it comes to the decision, the matter can be sorted out and the statement opposing it

1379
is already there from the mental health officer. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: I must say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is right. It is a slightly absurd position. Supposing the mental health officer refuses to make the application, there is no sanction upon him. You cannot put a duty on someone and say there is no sanction if he does not fulfil his duty. I think that something of this sort is really necessary, although this may not be the right way to do it.
The Earl of Mansfield: The provision in this Part of the clause is to avoid a fortunately rare possibility in which a mental health officer could find himself on the horns of a somewhat awkward dilemma. Circumstances can arise in which a psychiatrist who believes that a patient ought to be detained has no choice but to ask a mental health officer to make the necessary application. If the mental health officer honestly believes that the application should not be made he must either suppress his own views and make it or else take the risk that if the patient does, for example, commit suicide, he will be blamed for having brought about this tragic outcome by refusing to co-operate.
The provision which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, seeks to amend would rescue the mental health officer from this uncomfortable position. He would be obliged to make the application, but also to include a statement of his own opinion. The matter would then go before the sheriff, who is well qualified to weigh the merits of the opposing views and take an objective view as to whether he approves or refuses the application. This is a perfectly sensible way out of what could be an unpleasant situation.
But where I take issue with the noble Lord is over the matter of Amendment No. 49, because that flies in the face of one of the basic principles of the Act. Except in emergency, the detention of a patient is in pursuance of an application which must come from someone other than the doctors who are responsible for treating that patient. The application must be founded on two unbiased and objective medical recommendations, but the doctors would be placed in an invidious position if the application were to be made by one of them. I can assure your Lordships that there would be no support from any professional quarter—medical, social work or other—for this amendment.
So there is a dilemma here, as I have sought to illustrate, and this is a reasonable way round it, because it allows the mental health officer honestly to dissent from the view that has been taken. But, at the same time, it does the best for the patient and, above all, it does not breach the rule that the person who makes the application should be in no way connected with the persons who are, in fact, going to treat the patient. In those circumstances, I very much hope that the noble Lord will come to agree that this, and certainly not his amendment, is probably the best way out of it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It may certainly not be my amendment, but if we have not got my amendment we have not got a way out. We are still compelling a man who believes that no application should be made to make an application. That, to my mind, is quite wrong. If I withdraw the amendment, it means that I
1380
will apply myself and I hope that others will apply themselves, to this dilemma and find a way out.
I am glad that the Minister appreciates that it is a dilemma. But I think it is absolutely ludicrous that, although a man who will be subject to all this experience, competence and so on, and who has been dealing with a person for quite a time, says, "No, this person should not be compulsorily detained in hospital", the Minister says that he has to make the application and be satisfied with making a statement as to why he opposes the very thing for which he is compelled to apply.
It may well be that my amendment does not meet the dilemma, but there is this other difficulty in respect of the medical practitioner. I am perfectly sure that we could find some other medical practitioner. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I can promise the Minister of State that I will be searching, and I hope that others will help me to search, for another solution.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Grounds for compulsory admission to hospital or guardianship]:
9.18 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 6, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 3 on page 7.
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. We have had a lot of discussion on the differences between mental illness and mental handicap in the process of this Committee stage. This is really just another attempt in these two amendments to try to clarify the position, and make it a little more understandable to those who will have to operate the Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I take it that the noble Baroness would like me to deal with Amendment No. 50 first, because it is a very different matter from No. 51. The provisions which apply in this clause are identical, in effect, to those which were debated at considerable length in the House less than a year ago, in connection with the amendment of the equivalent legislation in England and Wales. In Scotland we go our own way where there is a good reason for doing so, or where we prefer our own methods. But, in this event, I do not think that there is any good reason for taking a different line on provisions which, I suggest, reflect a sensible compromise on a contentious issue.
The use of the terms "mental impairment" and "severe mental impairment" make it clear that mental handicap in itself can never be grounds for compulsory detention in hospital. For the grounds to be satisfied, a mentally handicapped person must be suffering from one of two specifically defined conditions, both of which are associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible behaviour. Even then, in the case of mental impairment which is less than severe, there must be a likelihood that treatment in hospital will be of benefit to the person concerned.
I do not think that we are likely to come up with a better compromise on this particular issue than the provisions of this clause, and I hope that in this particular instance the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Stedman: In the light of what the noble Earl has said and in the absence of my Scottish friends, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Medical recommendations]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 8, line 15, after ("patient") insert ("or to the safety of other persons").
The noble Earl said: Where a patient is to be admitted to hospital or received into guardianship under Sections 24 or 25 of the principal Act, the relevant application must be supported by two medical recommendations. Section 27 provides that one of these medical recommendations must be made by a psychiatrist and the other, if possible, by the patient's general practitioner. It also provides that only one of the recommendations may be made by a doctor on the staff of the hospital to which the patient is to be admitted.
Clause 9(2) seeks to provide for the circumstances which can sometimes arise in which the patient is not known to a general practitioner or any other doctor outside the hospital. In such circumstances, hospital, medical staff may have great difficulty in finding an outside doctor who is willing to come and examine the patient and make a recommendation. The new provision will permit both medical recommendations to be made by doctors on the staff of the hospital, subject to certain stringent conditions. These conditions are designed to ensure that the two recommendations are made independently and that the normal rule is relaxed only in cases of urgency.
One of the conditions is that compliance with the normal rule would result in a delay involving serious risk to the health and safety of the patient. Elsewhere in the Act and in the Bill, the element of danger which may stem from a patient's mental disorder is expressed in terms of risk to both the health and safety of the patient and the safety of others. The purpose of this amendment, therefore, is to ensure that the new provision is consistent with others in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Amendment of law relating to emergency admissions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 55 is agreed to, it will not be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to move Amendment No. 56.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 9, leave out lines 32 to 34.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 55.I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time we were to discuss Amendment No. 56. As has just been pointed out,
1382
Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 are alternatives. Only one of them can be selected, not both. Amendment No. 55 would have the effect of reducing the period from seven to three days for Scotland as a whole. Amendment No. 56 would reduce the period for the areas of the islands councils, not for the whole of Scotland.
I realise that this provision of three days is already in the 1982 Act for England and Wales, and I accept that in this matter there is some advantage in having uniformity north and south of the Border. However, I am glad to note that my noble friend has already said today, and from amendments which he has down—notably Amendments Nos. 90 and 94—that he is not slavishly copying the legislation that was enacted last year for England and Wales.
Against the uniformity advantage there is the geographical problem in Scotland; the barriers of mountains and sea and the remoteness which exists in parts of Scotland. These are to be found in Scotland to a degree not experienced in England and Wales. In particular, there are the problems of transport between the islands and the mainland and between the islands themselves. There could be a patient in Stornoway or Lerwick and, if the procedure was followed, he could be taken to Inverness or Aberdeen respectively within three days and the medical assessment carried out. I would add that that is not necessarily as easy as one might think because, certainly, Inverness Airport is open for only two hours on a Sunday, as I myself know very well.
But I am thinking also of the remote islands—for example, Barra or Yell where the transport between the islands, before one gets anywhere near an airstrip or an airfield, can be slow or subject to delay. As for areas served by sea transport, it is not uncommon for ship connections between the islands and the mainland to be much delayed. My noble friend Lord Mansfield will know of the number of interruptions there have been so far this winter in the sea transport around Northern Scotland and the islands because of the winter gales.
If a patient is detained on an emergency recommendation on a Saturday in a remote place in Scotland, there may not be time for him to travel and for the medical assessment all to be carried out within 72 hours. I have been speaking about the islands, but there are areas of the mainland too where the remoteness means delay. Some areas are normally served by sea and not overland. In the news recently there has been the area of Knoydart; like other remote areas of that kind it is sparsely populated although served by sea. We have to legislate none the less for the single case.
I believe there is a good argument for the first amendment in my name; that is, deleting the proposed change from seven days to three days for the whole of Scotland. Members of the medical profession in Scotland are worried about this proposal to reduce the period. The problems are likely to be much more frequent in the areas of the three islands councils—that is, the three groups of Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles. So I come to my second amendment, Amendment No. 56, which I suggest that the Government might adopt if they are reluctant to accept Amendment No. 55.
Amendment No. 56 would cover the most difficult areas as regards remoteness, distances and reliability of transport. It would also illustrate a matter that arises from time to time in relation to the three islands groups. Recently the government have appointed the Montgomery Committee to examine the special problems of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles.
I would be grateful if my noble friend could make some comment this evening, or could perhaps consider in his own time an amendment of this kind and in this form—making an exception of, or making different arrangements for, the areas of the islands councils. Do the Government, for example, see any difficulty in including an amendment of this kind in a public Bill? The persons who are resident in the areas of the islands councils fall within a clear category within Scotland, and the three islands councils are themselves in a clear and distinct category, by their nature and also because their functions are entirely different from all the other local authorities in Scotland. So, even if the Government do not accept this amendment on this health subject, I would be interested in their comments on whether they see any difficulty about a section containing this kind of wording in a public Bill, or whether this kind of amendment would have to be treated, or might be thought to have to be treated, as private legislation.
The Earl of Selkirk: I would like to support what my noble friend Lord Campbell has said. I think these fixed periods are rather dangerous to leave as they stand. Supposing they are exceeded. There is no criminal sanction to it, but are these certificates invalid? Does the whole thing fall to the ground? I am quite certain many of these periods will be exceeded from time to time. What happens then? I suppose nothing happens; the doctor has done the best he can to meet the requirement. I think to stand too closely on these rigid figures may be a little counter-productive.
The Earl of Mansfield: I think I can take it that my noble friend Lord Campbell is concerned solely with geographical troubles and is not really suggesting that the period of seven days should not be reduced to 72 hours, as it were, on merit. If that is so, I think his concern is perhaps misplaced, and I say that for this reason. If one goes to Section 31(3) of the 1960 Act one can see there that three days are allowed for the removal of the patient, and the period of detention does not begin until the patient is admitted to the hospital. In other words, what we are saying is that, even if somebody is to be removed from the Western Isles to, let us say, Inverness, a period of no less than three days is allowed for them to get there. The period of 72 hours during which the patient may be detained in hospital naturally begins only when he is admitted to the hospital, and it is of course that period which is designed to provide sufficient time for a psychiatrist to decide whether further detention is necessary.
Even in the worst of the weather I think it will always be possible to get from Stornoway or somewhere in the outer isles to Inverness within a period of three days, particularly having regard to the modern flights which operate every day between those places. If that is so, my noble friend may agree that neither of his amendments is necessary. If I have got his point wrong, or if he really feels that three days is
1384
not necessarily sufficient to get from the outer isles, or any of the isles, to the hospital, which, as he says, is likely to be either Inverness or Aberdeen for these purposes, I will look at the matter again. Certainly from the information I have, I really do not think it is necessary.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I could return to that point because I thought I had made it clear that it was not simply the journey between Stornoway and Inverness—which is one that I know quite well—or between Stornoway and Lerwick (one I know even better, having done it four times in the last few weeks) because from the capitals of those island groups to Inverness or Aberdeen is an easy flight, once one is in the air. But I thought I had made it clear that it is islands that are some distance from the capitals of the main groups, the lesser isles, which are the ones which often have difficulties with transport between the islands especially when there is no airstrip on those isles.
When my noble friend says that there are flights every day, I assure him that there are no flights on Sunday from Inverness to these places. I was allowing for the situation when these things happen at weekends. I was speaking also of a combination of factors. I was naturally emphasising the geographical barriers, the distances and remoteness, because that is the particular difference between the problems in northern Scotland and the position in England and Wales. I do not think there are places as remote or as difficult south of the Border, for which legislation of this kind was passed last year. That is why I am suggesting that there needs to be a different approach to the problems which I have described.
I emphasised the questions of distance and geography but I also included the accessibility of the appropriate psychiatrist. Members of the medical profession who have been in touch with me are worried also about their availability when these questions of distance and remoteness arise, because a psychiatrist may well go off to another part of the area, having to deal with some other case. Therefore, the question of his availability on the medical side also arises.
If my noble friend is quite confident that there will be no case of somebody who requires treatment—I am thinking of a patient on one of the smaller islands of the three island groups or in some other remote part of Scotland—being in difficulty owing to the provisions which he has been describing, then, naturally, I shall be satisfied. But I can tell him that the members of the medical profession to whom I have been speaking in northern Scotland, in the area around my home, are definitely worried about the proposed reduction. They accept that it is not something that is of any great concern perhaps in England and Wales, but different factors apply in Scotland, especially in the remoter areas of Scotland.
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the assurance that he has so far, but—it was with the particular cases of patients in Stornoway or Lerwick that I am concerned about—someone who has to get to Stornoway or Lerwick from another island first. He may find that in bad weather conditions it takes him a

1385
day or two to reach the starting point at Stornoway or Lerwick. That is the kind of situation I have in mind.
The Earl of Mansfield: With whatever sanity I possess, I must say I have knocked all round the Western Isles in all sorts of weather in the last three and a half years and I have never taken anything like 72 hours to get back to Edinburgh or Glasgow. I think what I should do is this. As my noble friend says that apparently the medical gentlemen have expressed anxieties to him, that is something I must go into. I shall do that if he will be good enough to withdraw his amendment for now.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am very grateful to my noble friend. I would not ask him without notice to comment on the more general point I was putting, which is of wider application but of great interest. I am referring the question of the form of the second amendment; that is to say, whether an amendment which would make exception for the areas of the three islands' councils is an amendment in a form acceptable in a public Bill. I hope that he will be able to get in touch with me about that in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 58 not moved]
9.40 p.m
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment on Amendment No. 54. I beg to move,
Lord Ross of Marnock: I know that I am in terrible company on this amendment. I did not recognise it. I thought that the Minister said Amendment No. 54, but it is Amendment No. 59 on which his name is strangely bracketed with mine. It is more than just a formal amendment. We are seeking to save the draftsman from a terrible error. This is something that should never have been done on a Scottish Bill, anticipating dealing with something in this subsection as renumbered by Clause 13 of this Bill. We have not yet come to Clause 13. It is very bad drafting and I am glad the Minister agrees with me. I hope that he will also agree that when we reach Clause 13 another amendment is required to put things right. I support the Minister in this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Power to detain patients already in hospital]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 10, line 8, after ("section") insert ("and after the word "or" where first occurring there shall be inserted the words "subject to section 31(6) of this Act".").
The noble Lord said: Having done what we did on the last amendment, we have to put it in the right order and that is the purpose of this amendment. It is a redrafting between Clause 12(2) and this opening subsection of Clause 13. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: On the face of it, the proposal in Clause 13 might, I suppose, constitute an unjustifiable addition to the existing powers to detain patients and be contrary to the spirit of the 1960 Act. It is however of the essence of the 1960 Act that a patient should not be detained unless it is absolutely necessary. If a patient is willing to enter hospital voluntarily for the treatment which he requires, he should not be detained simply because there is a possibility that he may at some time act unpredictably so as to place himself or others at risk. It surely follows, in full accordance with the spirit of the Act, that powers should be available to prevent a voluntary patient from leaving hospital if it is thought that serious harm would be likely to result from his doing so—if, for example, he had made it clear that his intention was to commit suicide.
Such circumstances are not likely to arise with any great frequency, and in most cases a doctor would be available to decide whether the patient should be detained under an emergency recommendation. In some cases, however, there may be no doctor immediately available, and it is left to the nurses to prevent the patient from leaving the hospital. Nurses are uncertain as to whether they have any right to stop a voluntary patient who intends to leave. I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be undesirable and potentially dangerous to allow that uncertainty to persist. Without the provisions made in Clause 13, the uncertainty would not merely persist: it would become more serious in Scotland because similar provisions have been made in respect of England and Wales by Section 6 of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982. The absence of such provisions in the Scottish legislation could have tragic consequences and I hope your Lordships will agree, therefore, that Clause 13 should stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has moved three amendments—
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have moved only one.
The Earl of Mansfield: He has put down three amendments.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes, but with all due respect, I never mentioned the principles of the Bill. I dealt with a purely drafting point which was consequential on an amendment that should have been moved to the previous clause. I have never mentioned the substance of the Bill at all; that will come in my later amendments.
The Earl of Mansfield: I suppose that my desire to limit the debate to a reasonable time was probably ill advised. As regards Amendment No. 61, I accept the principle of the amendment but not its form. If the noble Lord will seek to withdraw it, I will arrange for a substitute to be prepared.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I shall be very glad to do so and also very glad for it to be suggested to me where the amendment is wrong. However, I shall take the draftsman's word for it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 61.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("of the prescribed class")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 62. A power is being given to a nurse—a unique power in Scotland—to detain a patient against his will for, I think, six hours. We have no indication as to the nature of the nurse or the qualifications of the nurse; it just says, "of the prescribed class". I would like a little more information about the specialties of this nurse to whom the Government suggest that we should give this unique power, which we have previously never had in Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: This is very similar to Section 6(3) of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982. Nurses of the prescribed class are nurses who have experience of these particular types of mental care. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is actually attacking what is proposed. Nursing organisations, including the Confederation of Health Service Employees, have requested that some provision be made to clarify their position.
It should be pointed out that these detention powers are to be used only when absolutely necessary. It is essential that powers are available in circumstances where the need for detention may arise suddenly and unexpectedly and the only alternative would be a wider use of detention in cases where there is a risk of unpredictable behaviour.
So far as this amendment is concerned, if it were to make sense it would have to be coupled with an amendment to remove subsection (4) of the new provisions. If such an amendment had been moved and agreed to, any nurse would be able to exercise the new power. The nursing profession does not want that. As I have said, the intention is that the new power should be exercised only by registered nurses qualified in mental illness or mental deficiency.
Lord Winstanley: The Bill states:
"a nurse of the prescribed class".
Can the noble Earl tell the Committee who prescribes?
Lord Ross of Marnock: It comes under subsection (4); it is the Secretary of State, by order. Had I intended to attack this whole matter, I should have gone the whole hog. I should have suggested another amendment to leave out subsection (4)—which is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
"In subsection (2)… "prescribed" means prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State".
But, with all due respect to that, "prescribed" means prescribed. That is world-shattering information; I am sure that we are all very much happier about that; we are all clear as to what that means. Of course we are not.
I want the Minister to explain "of the prescribed class." The noble Earl referred to experience. Experience for how long?—a fortnight, a week, two days? I think that we are entitled to be treated as reasonably intelligent individuals and should be given some information as to what is in the Government's mind in respect of that. We have to be satisfied here and in another place, as well as some nursing association
1388
being satisfied. I think that the nursing association would be very worried indeed about it. It may well be that they have been given more information than we have. I want the information as to what type of nurse and what will be prescribed.
The Earl of Mansfield: As the noble Lord has already said, it is the Secretary of State who will prescribe. He is to make an order and will lay down those registered nurses who are qualified in mental illness or mental deficiency. There are classifications of registered mental nurse and registered nurse in mental deficiency.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Mental handicap.
The Earl of Mansfield: I do not know the precise details of who can be classified as a registered mental nurse, but I shall try to obtain the information as to the sort of order that the Secretary of State is likely to make when he carries out his duty under subsection (4) of this clause.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not think that we are going much further forward, but at some time or other we are to be told, and we are grateful for that. I shall certainly be even more grateful if the Minister, having wiped out in an earlier amendment the term "mental deficiency", will remain of that view and meantime use the words "mental handicap" when that is what he now means. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 10, line 25, leave out from ("hours") to ("or") in line 26.
The noble Lord said: This amendment raises another detail that concerns me. The Bill says:
"the patient may be detained in the hospital for a period of six hours from the time when these facts are so recorded".
It might be three hours before these facts are "so recorded". There is nothing to say that they have to be recorded immediately. When we are dealing with a period of time as short as six hours, the delay of a further hour is quite considerable. That is why I seek to leave out these words. I think it should start from the point of detention, and should provide:
"the patient may be detained in the hospital for a period of six hours"
and that is that; but not:
"from the time when these facts are so recorded",
without any qualification to ensure that these facts will be recorded at once. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am not at all certain that I can help the Committee. If a patient can only be detained once the nurse has made a record, he can walk out of the hospital while the record is being made. The noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary and would merely remove an explicit statement of what is in any case implied. In a matter of interpretation it is clear that the patient can be held while the record is being made, and the time taken to enter a few details on a prepared form would only be a matter of moments.

1389
This, I must say, does not convince me, and I do not think it will convince the noble Lord, Lord Ross. If I may, and if he will withdraw his amendment, I will take it away and consider it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: When the Minister suggested that what he was saying could not help me I was about to say how right he was. He quickly discovered he could not help himself. He did the wise thing, and on that promise I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.56 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This is new to Scotland. As far as I know, no one in Scotland has ever asked for this. Before we allow this to go through I hope the Government will tell us about threats of suicide, or actual suicides that have happened, because this power was not available. I am not convinced at all. There are very few people convinced that this is necessary. It would be wrong for us to let this pass. If this was early in the day I would divide the Committee on this, probably the most important thing in the Bill from this point of view.
I do not know whether or not my noble friend agrees with me. If he is trying to get me to create a Division, it is not on at this hour of the night. I am far too reasonable a person. It is a serious matter. I have not been convinced about it. To detain a person who may have been a voluntary patient, who went in on the understanding that he could come out when he wanted to, and to give power to a nurse to say, "No, you are not going out for at least six hours", requires far more proof than the fact that it was in the English Bill.
Where in Scotland has this difficulty arisen? It is strange that it should suddenly arise after this power has been given in respect of English hospitals. It is a pity there are not a few more of the Members here who were here earlier, but who preferred the delights of a Burns supper in this noble place to doing their work here. Well, I have always called the SDP the "superior drinking party". I am sure that they feel exactly the same way as I do about this particular clause. If we do not handle it now, we shall have to return to it later. May I have information about where these difficulties have arisen in Scotland, and how many there have been?
The Earl of Mansfield: I am not in a position to give chapter and verse as to the representations which have been made by the nursing professsion that in this particular instance Scotland should go down the same road as England and Wales. I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord had taken against Clause 13 quite so fiercely. It is a difficulty which can arise, that a voluntary patient who has arrived in circumstances where he would be a voluntary patient able to go announces that he is going to go, and a nurse is certian that a tragedy could very well ensue if the patient is allowed to leave—particularly, for instance, if he announces or it is obvious that he is going to commit suicide.
1390
If there is no doctor immediately available and the nurse is left in the position of having to prevent the patient from leaving the hospital, then what position is the nurse in? It is, at best, a position of uncertainty. All that Clause 13 does is to remove the uncertainty. It would be extraordinary if, in an area such as this, in England and Wales they quite happily pass Section 6 of their Act and, for reasons which I quite appreciate that the noble Lord harbours, we decide that we are not going to have any such provision in our Bill, and we do not really mind whether or not there could be these tragic consequences.
If the noble Lord really wants chapter and verse as to what cases there have been and the representations that have been made to us following the publication of the consultative document, I shall of course obtain the information; but for now I should have thought it would be only proper to allow the clause to remain in the Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: When a Government bring forward a Bill containing a power as new as this, they should already have all the arguments. I can only assume that when the Minister says. "Let us have the Bill and I will bring along all the arguments later", he does not have them, and I think he does not have them because he does not have any. However, I shall not divide the Committee on the issue.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short term detention]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 11, line 17, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment to correct a reference to a provision which was renumbered at some stage in the preparation of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Duration of authority for detention and guardianship]:
[Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 not moved]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 13, line 15, leave out ("have been") and insert ("appear to him to be").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to resolve a drafting difficulty in relation to the requirement placed on a responsible medical officer to consult other professionals before he assesses the need for the detention of a patient to be renewed. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that a representative of every profession engaged in the medical treatment of a particular patient is consulted. Medical treatment is broadly defined for the purposes of the measure as including nursing and also care and training under medical supervision. It is conceivable that in a particular case a nurse, a psychologist, a social worker and an occupational therapist could all be brought into the consultation. In other cases, however,

1391
it might be that no professional other than a nurse would be involved. The important point is that where the patient is receiving attention from members of a variety of different professions, a member of each of those professions should be consulted.
It has proved difficult to express without ambiguity the intention behind this provision. However, the words "one or more other persons" and "appear to him to be professionally concerned" do not, as may be suspected, give the responsible medical officer discretion to consult just one person whose concern may be less apparent than another's. Where only nurses are involved in the patient's treatment, it will be sufficient to consult one nurse. But where, for example, both nurses and psychologists are involved, it will be necessary to consult one of each.
The amendment does not stand entirely on its own. Amendments Nos. 90 and 94, which I shall beg to move at a later stage in our proceedings, will have a similar effect on the requirement to consult which is included in the new provisions relating to consent to treatment. The explanation I have given, I am afraid in some detail, will be repeated in the code of practice which is to be published in accordance with the new provisions introduced by Clause 33. This will have considerably more authority than notes of guidance on the measure and will prevent deliberate exploitation of any ambiguity which may be read into the provisions in question. I apologise for the detailed nature of that explanation, which, I fear, was required by the nature of the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
Page 13, line 31, leave out ("and")
line 35, at end insert ("and
(iv) at the end there shall be added the words "if such a report has been obtained.";")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 together. These two amendments hang together. Amendment No. 69 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 70 which is the substantive amendment. They are consequential upon an earlier amendment. No. 68. The new sub-paragraph which it is proposed to add to paragraph (c) will insert at the end of Section 39(4) of the principal Act the same words as appear at the end of the new subsection (3) which is substituted by paragraph (b) of Clause 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Discharge of patients]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("subsection (2) of")
line 32, leave out paragraph (a)
The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 together. These are technical
1392
amendments. The words "under this Part of this Act", which appear in Section 43(1) of the principal Act, make it unnecessary to insert additional words as proposed in paragraph (a) of Clause 17. The amendment therefore removes paragraph (a) and makes the necessary consequential changes.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause l7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18, 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Right of appeal of restricted patients etc.]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 en bloc:
Page 18, line 42, leave out ("discharged under") and insert ("remitted under subsection (2) of)
Page 19, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(" (4) Where the sheriff makes a recommendation under subsection (1)(b) of this section the Secretan' of State may by warrant give a direction under subsection (2) of this section and in any case where the Secretary of State does not give such a direction the patient shall continue to be detained in a hospital under the relevant transfer direction and restriction direction.")
line 20, leave out ("discharged under") and insert ("remitted under subsection (2) of)
line 22, leave out (", 60C")
line 31, leave out ("has not been") and insert ("is not")
line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(" (3) If in any appeal under subsection (1) or (2) of this section the sheriff is satisfied as mentioned in section 60B(1) or (2) of this Act, he shall uphold the appeal and—

(a) where he is satisfied as mentioned in the said section 60B(1), he shall direct the absolute discharge of the patient;

(b) where he is satisfied as mentioned in the said section 60B(2), he shall direct, or (as the case may be) continue the conditional discharge of the patient; and, in either case, he may vary any condition to which the patient is subject in connection with his discharge or impose any condition which might have been imposed in connection therewith.

(4) Where a patient is absolutely discharged in an appeal under subsection (1) or (2) of this section he shall thereupon cease to be liable to be detained by virtue of the relevant hospital order, and the restriction order shall cease to have effect accordingly.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 76 to 81 en bloc. These amendments seek to correct certain defects in the new Sections 60C and 60D which are among the new provisions to be introduced into the principle Act by Clause 21.
Where a transferred prisoner appeals under Section 60C for discharge from hospital, it would clearly be wrong for the sheriff to be required to discharge him into the community if he finds that there are no grounds for continuing his detention in hospital. Section 60C therefore provides for the sheriff in such cases to notify the Secretary of State of his finding. Where the sheriff finds that the patient would be entitled to absolute discharge the matter is straightforward: the patient should not any longer be detained in hospital, but should be returned to prison, to be released in due course in accordance with the normal arrangements applying to prisoners.
However, where the sheriff finds that the patient would be entitled to conditional discharge, it would not always be appropriate for the patient to be returned automatically to prison. What is required here is consideration as to whether the patient may be discharged from the hospital into the community under certain conditions, or whether he should be returned to prison. The effect of Section 60C, as

1393
amended, will be to enable the sheriff to recommend that the patient should remain in hospital while this matter is being decided.
The amendments to Section 60D will make clear the provision for the outcome of an appeal by a patient who, having been conditionally discharged, is then recalled to the hospital. At present, Section 60D(1)—that is approximately where Amendment No. 79 is concerned—merely provides for a right of appeal against recall. It is necessary to provide also for what is to happen if the appeal is upheld by the sheriff. That is what the new subsections (3) and (4) will do.
I have explained the purpose of some rather technical amendments to a set of very complex provisions. I think the Committee will agree that if they look right through Clause 21.I am confident that with the amendments that I have moved these provisions will now be in accordance with the Government's obligation to provide rights of appeal for patients who are subject to restrictions. If there are any points in relation to these provisions on which the Committee are not entirely satisfied I hope that—given the lateness of the hour—the Committee will allow me to go into greater detail in writing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Restriction orders and restrictions directions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall be agreed to?
The Earl of Selkirk: May I refer to the last words in that clause: "from serious harm". Will the noble Lord consider whether the word "serious" is too strong? One might even leave it out. The words, "from harm" seem quite enough.
Lord Lyell: We are very grateful to my noble friend for his detailed scrutiny of the Bill. He is quite correct. There is clearly a need for the words "serious harm" as written. We shall consider his point. We thank him for raising it and we shall write to him, if that is acceptable.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Continued detention in hospital]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 21, line 32, leave out ("184") and insert ("183, 184, 384")
The noble Lord said: This amendment adds to the paragraph which Clause 23 inserts into Section 68 of the principal Act. The amendment adds a necessary reference to two further sections of the 1975 Act under which probation orders may be made. The paragraph would have been incomplete without these references. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [State Hospital Management Committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 24, line 29, leave out ("to") and insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment which has precisely the same purpose and effect in relation to the provisions concerning the state hospital management committees as Amendment No. 10 had in relation to those concerning the Mental Welfare Commission. With that brief explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 88:
Before Clause 28 insert the following new clause:—
"After care of persons leaving hospital or detention.
(.—(1) This section applies to persons who, having been detained under section 24, 31 or 32A of the principal Act, or having been admitted to the hospital in pursuance of a hospital order made under section 55 of the principal Act, or having been transferred from a hospital in pursuance of a transfer direction given under section 66 of the principal Act, cease to be detained and leave hospital.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Local Health Authority and of the Local Authority to provide, in cooperation with relevant Voluntary Agencies, after care services for any person to whom this section applies.
(3) The duty laid down by subsection (2) above shall continue until the Local Authority and the Local Health Authority are satisfied that the person concerned is no longer in need of such services.
(4) In this section "the Local Health Authority" means the Local Health Authority for the District and "the Local Authority" means the Local Authority for the area in which the person concerned is resident or to which he is sent on discharge by the hospital in which he was detained.")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock, I formally move this amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like very strongly to support this amendment as it was one which we moved successfully with the support of your Lordships in this Chamber. These are patients who are detained, some of whom can be exceedingly dangerous, and it is more than unwise to discharge them into the community without after-care. Some of them are psychopaths, murderers and sex offenders. Not only is it for their own good but for the good of their families and the community; and therefore I hope the Government will support this.
The Earl of Mansfield: I do not know whether the noble Baroness was in her place when we were discussing the last amendment regarding after-care, but I then gave the undertaking that not only would I consider it but I would bring forward a Government amendment on the subject.
Lord Campbell of Croy: May I just ask whether in fact it is correctly worded? In subsection (4) of this new clause, I wonder whether it is correct for a local health authority in Scotland to be the local health authority for the district. I only draw attention to the fact that the local authority units in Scotland are quite different, as are the health units; and it may be that, unless someone has given attention to the necessary changes, the amendment will need to be drafted rather differently if it is in a Scottish Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like just to say to the noble Earl that I was in my place but we were speaking to a different amendment and that one did not include detained patients. I am very pleased to hear what the noble Earl has to said.
The Earl of Mansfield: It may not have' been included, but I included it specifically.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Consent to treatment]:
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 27, line 3, leave out ("is capable of understanding") and insert ("understands").
The noble Lord said: This is indeed a very important part of the Bill, dealing as it does with the rights of detained patients in relation to certain forms of treatment which it is considered should not be given to those patients without their express consent and a clear understanding that they have consented, and with a number of safeguards attached thereto. The matter being so important, I make no apology, despite the lateness of the hour, for dealing with it here and now, because, if I may say so, I think it is every bit as important as some of the matters about which we took a considerable time earlier and I do not think we should skate over this particular part of the Bill.
In many ways what is contained in this Bill in relation to the special forms of treatment is very satisfactory. There is treatment requiring consent and indeed certain safeguards; namely, a medical practitioner not being the medical practitioner responsible for the particular patient, and, in addition, two other persons who are appointed by the commission must certify in writing,
"that the patient is capable of understanding the nature, purpose and likely effects of the treatment in question and has consented to it".
The kinds of treatment we are considering in this section are matters like psychosurgery and certain other matters which will be listed by the Secretary of State in regulations which will be made. There are certain forms of treatment which were described in the English and Welsh Act as "treatments of special concern".
I regard this part of the Bill as satisfactory, but we could clarify it. It requires those certifying to state,
"in writing that the patient is capable of understanding the nature, purpose and likely effects of the treatment in question and has consented to it".
I may say here that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 93, which deals with precisely the same point at a later stage, so it will not be necessary to detain your Lordships' Committee again. The amendment merely seeks to delete the words "is capable of understanding" and to insert the word "understands". That is surely what matters. We are all capable of understanding many things, but it may be that we do not always understand. A patient may be capable of understanding the nature of the treatment and its likely effects, but he may not understand. He may not understand, perhaps, because of his own lack of attention. That is one factor. But he may also not understand because it may not have been explained to him with sufficient clarity. What we need to know is not just that the patient is capable of understanding, but that he does, in fact, understand.
The whole intention of this part of the Bill, which deals with all these cases except those covered under Section 93G, under which certain forms of treatment can be carried out in an emergency situation to protect the patient, is that we must be sure that the patient has consented. We must know that he has consented. If he does not actually understand, he can never say that he has consented. The fact that he is capable of understanding should not necessarily assure us that he has given an informed consent. Therefore, this amendment merely takes out the words "is capable of understanding" and substitutes the word "understands". I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: I am sure your Lordships will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for very clearly and succinctly explaining the purpose of these two amendments, Nos. 89 and 93, which are in his name. We are fully in sympathy with the spirit of these amendments, but I would say immediately that we believe they would ask too much of those who are appointed to give certificates for the purposes of the new provisions in Clause 29.
Certainly, we need to ensure that where a specified form of treatment is to be given with the patient's consent, the patient both knows and understands what it is he is agreeing to. That is, indeed, the purpose of the provisions in question. However, while we can reasonably expect someone to talk to the patient and come to a view as to whether the patient is, or is not, capable of understanding what has been explained to him, it is quite another matter to ask that person to certify that the patient has definitely understood the full implications of a proposed form of treatment. The point is that no one can be absolutely certain as to what is going on in someone else's mind. One could ask a patient to say what he believes to be the nature, purpose and likely effects of a proposed form of treatment and receive a perfectly lucid and satisfactory answer. On that basis, one could honestly certify that the patient shows every evidence of full understanding. But, in our view, that would not be sufficient to enable one to certify with complete confidence that the patient does, in fact, understand.
Let me make it quite clear that, although there is an important difference between the words "is capable of understanding" and the word "understands", from the point of view of the person signing a certificate there should be very little difference in effect so far as the

1397
patient is concerned. We do not see how, in practice, one could reasonably form a view that the patient is capable of understanding the matters in question, without being confident in one's own mind that he does understand. However, being confident is one thing and signing a certificate to the effect that one is absolutely certain is another. Clause 33 of the Bill makes provision for a code of practice, in which it will be possible to express the intentions behind the new provisions more effectively than can be done by juggling with words in the Bill itself. We give the assurance that clear guidance on this point will be included in the code of practice. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Airedale: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has fully understood the point which my noble friend made when he implied that there might be a case where a doctor is in a hurry and does not have the time and patience to go to the fullest lengths in order to make this perhaps rather dimwitted person understand fully. If the matter is not patiently, at length, explained to him, the doctor escapes liability because the patient is capable of understanding and that satisfies the paragraph, but care has not been taken to make certain that the patient does understand. That is why my noble friend wants the word "understands" to be put in the place of "is capable of understanding".
The noble Lord says that nobody knows exactly what goes on in the mind of somebody else. That is perfectly true. As a possible alternative, would the noble Lord consider saying that the doctor should be satisfied that the person understands or is of opinion that the person understands, rather than simply leaving it at "is capable of understanding"?
Lord Lyell: When I attempted to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, it appeared to me that it was not so much a question of whether the patient was capable of understanding or being understood: it had far more to do with the doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist or whoever was speaking to the patient, because it was this person who had to sign the certificate. The effect I was striving to put to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was that if one had to sign a certificate it was different from merely expressing an opinion or wondering whether the patient was capable of understanding, or did understand. There has to be a great deal of certainty if an expert is to sign a certificate. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would consider that merely expressing an opinion would be a strong enough basis upon which to sign a certificate. Signing a certificate is the basis of what we have included in 93A, 93B and 93C of Clause 29. However, I shall certainly take on board the point which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has another point to put to me.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was merely going to say that I am most certainly capable of understanding the noble Lord, though at this hour of the night I am not wholly satisfied that I totally understand him. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Airedale for his support and for the
1398
suggestion which he has made. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will consider the most helpful suggestion which was made to him by my noble friend.
Although I am not wholly reassured, may I say at this stage to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that I am partially reassured by what he said about the code of practice? It is possible that this point could be provided for effectively in the code of practice, but I shall wait until I have had the opportunity to study the noble Lord's words with a little more care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 27, line 15, leave out from ("consult") to the end of line 19 and insert ("any one or more persons who appear to him to be professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 90, and with your Lordships' permission I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. The purpose of these amendments was explained when we considered Amendment No. 68, to which I spoke earlier, in relation to Clause 16.
The persons to be consulted under the relevant provisions in the new Sections 93B and 93C will be at least a nurse—and, wherever they are also involved in the care of the patient, any psychologist, social worker or other professional person who is so involved. I hope your Lordships will agree that all three of the amendments to which I have spoken—Amendments Nos. 90, 94 and 95—are sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Amendment No. 95 is indeed one of my amendments, but I quite understand that my noble friend should wish my Amendments Nos. 95 and 90A—which is a similar amendment to the same wording in a previous passage—to be discussed with the Government amendments. The reason for this is that the Government have more than met the point in my amendments; they have taken my point and gone further. I rise to thank and congratulate them for that.
My concern was that there seemed to be a bias against anyone who is medically qualified. As the Bill is now worded, the action has to be taken by one medical practitioner and by four other people who, specifically, are not medical practitioners. As the Bill is at present drafted, this is prescribed in paragraph (a), where two persons have to sign the certificate and they must not be medical practitioners; and in sub section (3) there are two others, one of whom has to be a nurse and the other a person who is not a nurse. Neither of them are to be medical practitioners, but both have to have been professionally involved in the case. It is quite a problem to consider who that fourth person is going to be, who must be neither a nurse nor a medical practitioner. Except for a social worker, it is not easy to visualise enough professional people who might be involved in an individual case.
I believe my noble friend has made a good decision because, as I understand it now, in both sections, instead of two people it can be just one person—one or more—and they have simply to be people who, in the

1399
opinion of the medical practitioner, are professionally concerned in the case. That makes both sections very much more workable and will make it easier for the medical practitioner, who is basically the person who has to take the action.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90A not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 27, line 26, after ("and") insert ("(b).").
The noble Lord said: At the outset I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for moving Amendment No. 95, which was in fact his amendment. He was very kind and I understand that we have fully satisfied him. If I may return to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, your Lordships will recall that a minute ago I was dealing with Amendments Nos. 89 and 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, which dealt with the form of the certificates which are to be given in respect of the patient's ability to understand the nature, purpose and likely effects of certain forms of treatment. For the purpose of giving such certificates, the medical practitioner and two other people concerned are to have the right to visit and interview the patient in private and to inspect his medical records. Quite properly, only the medical practitioner is to have the right to examine the patient.
It has been strongly represented to the Government that the right to inspect medical records should also be confined to the medical practitioner, and that would be the effect of the amendment. This is a question of the patient's right to have the confidentiality of his medical records respected. In reaching a conclusion about the patient's ability to understand what is involved in the proposed form of treatment, the medical practitioner may well glean or obtain useful information from the patient's medical record. The information would not, however, be likely to be useful to the two non-medical people. Indeed, the purpose of requiring certificates from them is to have a non-medical view of the patient's ability to understand the matters in question, and they should not be swayed by what has been set down in the medical records.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 27, line 29, leave out (" (b)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 28, line 31, leave out from ("consult") to the end of line 35 and insert ("any one or more persons who appear to him to be professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Duty of boards of management of hospitals to give information to detained patients and nearest relatives.]:
10.37 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 31, line 9, leave out (", section 102 and section 104") and insert ("and sections 102, 102A and 104A")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that appropriate references are made in the new provisions introduced by Clause 30 to other provisions which may affect patients and about which, where relevant, they should be informed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Correspondence of patients]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 32, line 23, leave out ("Any") and insert ("No")
The noble Earl said: This clause deals with correspondence, and I have made two amendments here. First, I think it has the wrong emphasis. It says:
"Any postal package addressed to any person … may be withheld".
Quite frankly, it needs to say the opposite, that no postal package addressed by any patient may be withheld. That is really what they are saying, except with one minor exception. I suggest this is a better way of expressing that first part.
I have omitted paragraph (a) which says:
"if that person has requested that communications addressed to him by the patient should be withheld."
I am very anxious that there should not be any inhibition on patients writing letters. They have not very much to do and one of their entertainments is writing letters; it may be to the Lord Chancellor or other people. I think they should be given very free licence to do so as far as possible. There is one limitation, and it may be that I go too far in taking this out altogether; that is, if it causes distress to other people. That is a very small limitation. I do not think we should say, "You must not write any letters", for no reason. I wonder whether the Government would consider an amendment on the lines "unless the letter gives distress to the recipient", to indicate a valid and proper reason why a letter should not be written. Otherwise, I believe people in this distressing situation should be given the utmost liberty to write letters as they see fit. No doubt many of your Lordships receive letters of this sort; there is no harm in it, and on the whole it provides an outlet which, where possible, should not be denied. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: If one considers Clause 32, as opposed to Section 34, for instance, of the 1960 Act, in fact this clause introduces new provisions which much reduce the present powers to intercept patient correspondence. The reason for the change is that it is felt that patients should enjoy their freedoms, unless there is good reason to take them away; and that, of course, is entirely consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. As I say, Clause 32 liberalises the régime as far as patients' correspondence is concerned.

1401
My noble friend's first amendment, Amendment No. 98, would drastically alter the effect of the new Section 102. That effect, taken together with the effect of Amendment No. 99, the second amendment, would be to provide explicitly that "no" rather than "any" postal packet addressed to a patient in a mental hospital would be withheld by the Post Office if the hospital was a state hospital and the board of management considered that the postal packet was likely to cause distress or danger. I do not believe that my noble friend is as hard-hearted as that implies. In fact, he says that he is not.
I believe that it is humane and reasonable to provide for a person who is receiving letters from a patient to be able to ask for them to be withheld. I appreciate what my noble friend says, that if mental patients, who do not have much to do, want to write letters which may embarrass their friends and relations, I suppose that is something which their friends and relations will probably put up with. Nevertheless, they very often write to third parties who really do not want to be embarrassed, and I think it is only reasonable to provide for such letters to be withheld. For instance, a patient can suffer from delusions which lead him to write a constant stream of letters to a particular person, which may be distressing in a variety of ways. Such a person should be given some right to protect himself against such distress.
In subsection (3) your Lordships will see included the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, I am afraid, obtains no protection. The persons concerned can write as many letters as they like and such will not be intercepted.
I take my noble friend's point. It might be an improvement if we were to write something into the clause to the effect that a person who wishes to have the letters intercepted should claim some kind of distress. It would be impossible to monitor. It would merely enjoin the person who, as it were, is claiming relief, to satisfy himself that he was not doing it merely out of a spirit of pique or irritation. If I undertake to think about the matter, perhaps my noble friend will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I suggest that if he or I received a letter it is not really necessary to read the letters, if we do think they contain nothing we want to hear. It does no harm. I get lots of letters from people who perhaps have been in mental hospitals or are still in mental hospitals, and who ramble on. I do not always read them all, but it does no harm.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am afraid that I always do read the letters, because I always feel that among the dross one is going to find a nugget of gold. It occasionally happens that somebody who is receiving mental treatment and complains bitterly, suddenly actually points the finger in the right direction and one is in a position to help them. I have found that on more than one occasion, but I am afraid I do read all these letters and I read them right through.
The Earl of Selkirk: May I venture to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I get some letters
1402
which I do not even open. I know the handwriting well and I have read a great many of them, and I have given up doing so altogether.
I do not agree with what my noble friend has said. It is much easier to say that no postal packet will be interfered with, lest they cause distress. I must say that my noble friend has subsection (3) wrong. Subsection (3) does not apply to people in hospitals. It applies only to people in state hospitals. That is a different proposition. May I, as a matter of drafting, suggest that it should be under quite a separate subsection. As it is, it is in a paragraph dealing with state hospitals, which is totally different from dealing with just hospitals. I should have thought that it would have been simpler to say "if it causes distress". It is a pity if people are discouraged from writing. As the noble Baroness said, one does not need to open the letters; they are generally pretty simple.
I merely want to make it clear that there is no easy way of stopping people from doing what is a very simple and innocent thing. I may be wrong, but I should have thought that comparatively few letters from hospitals really cause distress. It is only in those circumstances that it is necessary to take appropriate steps.
If the noble Earl shows that sympathy which is characteristic of him and looks at this again, I should be extremely grateful and will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am grateful to my noble friend for putting me right on subsection (3). Of course I shall look at it again.
The Earl of Selkirk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Code of practice]:
[Amendment Nos. 100, 101 and 101A not moved.]
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 35, line 18, at end insert ("and the code of practice shall, in particular, give advice regarding the use of treatments which are not fully established and the need to obtain the informed consent of patients upon whom such treatments are attempted.")
The noble Lord said: I hope we can deal with this amendment fairly rapidly. It is essentially a probing amendment. It seeks to look further into what can be said in the Bill to define what will ultimately be included in the code of practice, which we all know will be very important to the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act. The amendment specifies certain matters which I believe will be helpful if included in the code of practice.
My understanding is that during the passage of the English and Welsh Bill an undertaking was given that such words would be included in the code of practice, and I merely seek an assurance that a similar undertaking might be given on this Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am happy to give that undertaking if the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 35, line 21, leave out from ("bodies") to end of line 23.
The noble Lord said: I am sure that this amendment, too, can be dealt with rapidly. The noble Earl will recollect, if he will cast his mind back several hours, that when he was speaking to his own Amendment No. 4, which sought to do precisely what this amendment proposes, he said that when we reached this amendment he would accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord is right. I gave that assurance several hours ago, and I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 39, line 39, leave out ("regulation") and insert ("recommendation")
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment to correct a mistake. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 40, line 11, leave out ("transfer") and insert ("restriction")
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment to correct an error. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 makes a transitional provision in relation to the effect of the amendment made to the principal Act by Clause 24. The provision should relate to "restriction" directions, not "transfer" directions, and the amendment will make the necessary substitution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 40, line 34, leave out ("in") and insert ("to")
The noble Earl said: This is a straightforward drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 41, line 1, at end insert—
(" . In the following provisions, for the words "local health authority" or "local health authorities", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "local authority" or "local authorities" respectively—

Section 5(2)

Section 7(1A)(c)

1404

Section 7(2)

Section 10(1)

Section 12(1)

Section 12(3)

Section 12(4)

Section 25(2)

Section 25(3)

Section 26(1)

Section 29(2)

Section 29(3)

Section 29(4)

Section 33(1)

Section 33(2)

Section 36(2)

Section 37(1)

Section 37(2)

Section 37(3)

Section 38(1)

Section 38(2)

Section 38(3)

Section 39(4)

Section 39(6)

Section 43(4)(b)

Section 43(5)

Section 44(2)

Section 44(3)

Section 48(2)

Section 49(2)

Section 51(1)

Section 53(2)

Section 87(1)

Section 87(2)

Section 88(2)

Section 91(1)

In Schedule 2, the entry relating to section 53.")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, and it may be convenient if I also speak to Amendment No. 114, which is consequential to this amendment. The effect of these amendments is to remove from the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 a paragraph which provides for references in the principle Act to "local health authorities" to be construed as references to "local authorities" as defined for the purposes of the 1968 Act, and to amend the text of the principal Act so that references to "local authorities" will replace references to "local health authorities" wherever they appear. It is inconvenient and confusing to have an out-of-date expression occurring so frequently in the principal Act, and I hope your Lordships will agree that these amendments will make a desirable textual improvement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 41, line 50, after ("and") insert ("shall")
The noble Earl said: This is a small but important amendment. It inserts the word "shall" into the words which paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 will substitute for part of subsection (1A) of Section 7 of the principal Act. This will ensure that local authorities are required to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State in relation to the making of arrangements for the purposes of Section 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113:
Page 43, line 38, leave out ("(1)")
line 39, after ("directions)") insert ("—
(a) in subsection (1)")

1405
line 42, after ("Act") insert (";and—
(b) in subsection (2) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(c) persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971.".")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113 en bloc. These amendments bring up to date a reference in Section 66 of the principal Act to persons detained under the Aliens Order 1953. Section 66 provides for the transfer from prisons and other institutions to hospitals of prisoners who are found to be suffering from mental disorder. The amendment will substitute for the present reference a reference to persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 48, line 34, column 3, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert ("In Schedule 8, paragraph 50.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Dartford Tunnel Bill [H.L.] King's College London Bill [H.L.] Kingston upon Hull Bill [H.L.] Lloyds Bowmaker Bill [H.L.] Parkeston Quay Bill [H.L.] Pwllheli Harbour Bill [H.L.] Staffordshire Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  THE BYFORD REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION
  THE BYFORD REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION
  THE "SOUTHWARK SITE": DEVELOPMENT
  THE "SOUTHWARK SITE": DEVELOPMENT