Sitting of 14 July 1983

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 21 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Capital Punishment
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the proposal to reintroduce capital punishment by hanging.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): Since 10 June my Department has received about 1,100 letters about capital punishment from organisations and members of the public, either direct or forwarded by hon. Members.
    Mr. Evans: In view of the decisive votes yesterday, will the Home Secretary assure us that the restoration of capital punishment is finished as a topic for discussion for a very long time to come? Will he reject any moves for a referendum on the issue? Does he realise that to deal with the problems of crime and violence we must tackle the problem of carrying arms and will he introduce measures to deal with that? Does he realise that if we are to deal with crime and violence the Government must re-examine their economic and social policies, which have led to the increase in crime in recent years?
    Mr. Brittan: It is not for me to stop or to promote debate, but I should have thought that last night's votes were sufficiently decisive for it to be unlikely that the matter would come before the House again for quite a while. I do not believe that matters that are not of a constitutional type are suitable for a referendum. Yesterday's debate on capital punishment showed clearly that not just one but many questions must be asked, even by those who favour its restoration—for whom, in what circumstances, and so on. Therefore, the idea that there is a single question that can be answered in a simple way is not one that I find attractive.
    996
    The social causes of crime are many and various. I do not think that they can be easily identified in a supplementary answer any more than in a supplementary question.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In view of last night's votes, if the subject of capital punishment arose again in this country would it not he vital to hold a referendum? Should not Parliament know beyond peradventure the nation's view on this subject so that Parliament and the people are closer together in their general view?
    Mr. Brittan: If there was one common thread in yesterday's debate it was the recognition by most people of the probable state of public opinion in so far as it could be ascertained. Therefore, if the object of a referendum is an inquiry I do not think that is necessary. If the object is a decision, for the reasons that I gave earlier, I do not think that it is appropriate.

    European Parliament (Postal Votes)
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will present early legislation to the House, in advance of the election to the European assembly, to allow postal votes in that election for persons intending to be on holiday on polling day.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): My right hon. and learned Friend is actively considering the question of legislation on this matter, but it is doubtful whether such legislation could be introduced in time for the European Parliament elections next year.
    Mr. Latham: As there is a clear date for the election, is my hon. Friend aware that some of us would regard the Government's decision on this as showing whether they seriously intend to respond to the wishes of the House or to kick the matter into touch for another five years?
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. and learned Friend made the Government's position clear in the debate on the Queen's Speech when he said that it was wrong in principle that people on holiday should be unable to vote. As he will make clear in answering subsequent questions about the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, we believe that this cannot be dealt with piecemeal but must be taken together with the other reforms suggested The Government's response will be published in due course.
    Mr. Beith: Do the Government intend that the European election should be fought not just on an inadequate system but on boundaries made out of date by the recent Westminster boundary changes?
    Mr. Mellor: The Boundary Commission can only work at a certain pace and those who object to what it recommends must enjoy their right to have those objections heard. The hon. Gentleman can do the arithmetic as well as I can and must know how short tame is. He will arrive at the same conclusion as I did—that it will be extremely difficult for any change to be effected before the date fixed for those elections.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Will my hon. Friend assure us that, in carrying out the review, he will not overlook the right of British citizens who live in Europe to vote at the European elections?
    Mr. Mellor: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

    Community Leaders
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives chief constables for advising community volunteer leaders about law and order problems within the civil defence context.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Guidance on the role of volunteers and community organisation in war is in Home Office circular No. ES 2/1981. It does not cover law and order, which are the responsibility of the Government and the police. It is for chief constables to decide on any advice they might give to community volunteer leaders.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that law and order are matters of concern to community civil defence workers and that the advice they receive from chief constables varies? Will he consider issuing guidance to chief constables on this matter?
    Mr. Hurd: We must stick to the principle that problems of law and order are, in any circumstances, the responsibility of the Government and the police. It is natural that chief constables should want to give what information they have to community volunteers. I should like to think about my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to consider the cost of the operation, in that when local authorities carry out duties on behalf on civil defence they often generate a substantial penalty against the rate support grant? Is he aware that they sometimes incur a penalty of £3 for every £1 that they spend? Is he further aware that that will remove the 75 per cent. funding from central sources?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not sure how often my hon. Friend's theory is likely to occur in practice. The House will have an opportunity to discuss that when we debate the new regulations.

    Representation of the People Acts
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the report of the Home Affairs Committee on the Representation of the People Acts.
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the report of the Home Affairs Committee on the Representation of the People Acts.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Her Majesty's Government expect to have concluded their consideration of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report on the Representation of the People Acts.
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the report of the Home Affairs Committee on the Representation of the People Acts.
    Mr. Brittan: Shortly, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the sense of injustice felt by many people who were deprived of the right to vote at the general election
    998
    campaign because they were on holiday? Is he further aware that there is a difference between elections for local government or the European assembly, the dates of which are known in advance, and general elections, the dates of which are not known in advance? Is he aware also that for the latter people are not able to make appropriate arrangements? Will he introduce legislation as soon as possible to implement the change recommended in the report?
    Mr. Brittan: I am not simply aware of the concern, I share it to the full. It is helpful of my hon. Friend to point out the practical implications of doing something about different types of elections. Changing the timetable for a general election would raise wide issues. The problems of change are not insuperable, but they are considerable, for fixed elections. Nevertheless, I share my hon. Friend's anxiety.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are linked.
    Mr. Beith: When considering the Committee's proposals on deposits, will the Minister bear in mind that parties that are less comfortably financed than the Conservatives would have a major problem in laying out more than £500,000 to fight an election if that proposal were implemented? Will he stand by the previous Government's assurance that such legislation being passed will depend on all-party agreement?
    Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the House will want to know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with a spirit of altruism, because the Liberal-SDP alliance lost 19 deposits whereas the Labour party lost 119. The objective of any change would be to reflect changed circumstances since 1918, when the deposit was fixed at £150. It would not be intended to jeopardise the legitimate operations of democracy.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Home Secretary aware that the report shows that inaccuracy in the register from 1951 to 1961 increased by 9 per cent.? Is he worried about that? If so, what does he propose to do about it? Does he agree that it is interesting that we should be considering the detailed mechanics of electoral law which disfranchises about 9 per cent. of the population, when the first-past-the-post system disfranchises far more?
    Mr. Brittan: When the electorate had the opportunity to vote for parties that advocate proportional representation, 70 per cent. chose not to. We can do something about the accuracy of the register in advance of legislation, because much can be done by administrative means. We held a seminar with some registration officers to discuss some aspects of this issue. We shall hold more meetings with other registration officers and review the design of some of the electoral forms. Those are the practical steps that can be taken in any event.
    Mr. Hunt: My right hon. and learned Friend has told us when he will reply to the Select Committee's report. Will he be a little more specific about when he will act on its recommendations, especially in respect of votes for holidaymakers? Does he appreciate that that matter is urgent and that there is strong feeling in the country about it? Does he further agree that we cannot let the matter drift for much longer?
    Mr. Brittan: I assure my hon. Friend that it will not drift. Equally, he will understand that it is not for me to announce the legislative intentions of the Government, still less their timing. I hope that by what I said during the debate on the Queen's Speech and by what I have said today I have communicated my anxiety about the matter and my belief that action is necessary.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Are these not matters which, not being wholly neutral politically, ought to be considered by a conference under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, before there is any consideration of a change in the law?
    Mr. Brittan: Experience of these matters shows that the best advice was given by Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd, who did not commend such a practice to the House. The new Select Committees and their reports are a new development. I do not believe that the course that the right hon. Gentleman commends is necessarily the most appropriate.
    Mr. McCrindle: While we await legislative proposals on votes for holidaymakers, would it not be useful for the Home Secretary to explain now what has been considered the essential difference between being on business in Birmingham, which has entitled me to a vote, and being on vacation in Ventnor, which has not?
    Mr. Brittan: I have been unable to find a rational distinction between the two. The only basis is that it is thought possible to prove the one and not the other. The law is founded on that. That is not a satisfactory distinction or a satisfactory basis for such discrimination.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Home Secretary aware that what he said about examining inaccuracies in electoral registers at the recent general election is most welcome? Is he further aware that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have complained about what they learnt of the electoral registers in their constituencies? Will he keep the House informed of any progress that he makes in improving the quality of the registers?
    Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall do what I can to keep the House informed. Many of the issues are technical and involve minor administrative matters, but collectively and cumulatively they will, I hope, lead to welcome improvements in the registers.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any changes in our electoral system that led to the permanent domination of the: Government by a minority party would be undemocratic?
    Mr. Brittan: Yes.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend fly in the face of the precedents set by all Home Secretaries and actually do something? Will he say now that he accepts that the pressure for postal votes is so strong, and the justification for them so clear, that he will do everything he can to persuade those who are responsible for Government business to act, and that he will not wait for the entire report to be accepted because he accepts the urgency and the wholly exceptional nature of the problem and will do something about it?
    Mr. Brittan: I have made my views on those matters clear. I do not necessarily accept that this aspect of the matter should be dealt with on its own. The Select
    1000
    Committee report made three principal recommendations, and I should not wish it to be thought that I regard the other two as less important.

    Police Officers (Memoirs)
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with chief constables concerning the publication of memoirs by senior police officers.
    Mr. Brittan: The Association of Chief Police Officers shares my concern about the publication of Mr. Gregory's memoirs. It told me that it was already considering the complex issues which it raised. This study, which I welcome, will continue, and the association will keep in touch with my officials.
    Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the general feeling of distaste at this regrettable display of what might be called cheque book chief constablism by Mr. Ronald Gregory? Does he recognise that it is difficult to deal with such a matter by introducing new legislation? Might not the remedy lie in encouraging police authorities to have much stricter contractual terms of appointment for senior police officers?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree that what happened was deplorable and I took the earliest opportunity to make my views clear. My hon. Friend is right to mention the difficulty of proceeding by means of legislation. There is some information that an ex-chief constable can usefully give, but it becomes objectionable when he discloses information that is prejudicial to police operations or, as in this case, is damaging or distressing to individuals. We must find a way to deal with that.
    Mr. Flannery: I was interested in this matter because the Yorkshire Ripper was brought to a police station in my constituency. I was alarmed when Mr. Gregory prejudged the man, although his judgment proved to be correct. May we have an inquiry into the entire affair so that nothing like it can occur again, and so that someone cannot make a great deal of money out of the terrible misery of those poor people who suffered because of the inadequacy of the search for the Ripper, under Mr. Gregory's poor leadership?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not know what sort of inquiry the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but the Association of Chief Police Officers is considering the matter and consulting my Department, which I hope will lead to a practical solution to the problem.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that as long ago as 1979, when Mr. Gregory was chief constable of West Yorkshire, he was preparing the series of articles with the help of officers employed by the police authority, and that in January 1980 he forbade all officers to publish anything because it was the copyright of the chief constable, although he is now in breach of the present chief constable's copyright? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that Mr. Gregory arranged early retirement with a golden handshake of £50.000, and retired on 8 June, that the journalist with whom he collaborated left The Mail on Sunday to work with him full time from February, and that the first article appeared three weeks after his retirement? Will my right hon. and learned Friend investigate that scandal?
    Mr. Brittan: We cannot take action retrospectively to deal with the matters to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. However, we must ensure that it never happens again.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is uniquely distasteful that Mr. Gregory could cash in on his own incompetence? Does not the incident illustrate that chief constables are not only non-accountable to elected representatives, but, from what the Home Secretary has said, are not accountable to him? Will he do something about that?
    Mr. Brittan: It would be wrong to draw general conclusions about chief constables on the basis of this episode, and there is no evidence for doing so. The fact that action is necessary has been recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The hon. Gentleman did less than justice to the fact that the association readily denounced the activity, which has been universally condemned, and is considering ways of dealing with it. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman might think that greater prominence should have been given to that aspect of the matter if he wished to be fair to the entire police service.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received urging legislation on animal welfare.
    Mr. Mellor: We have received a number of representations suggesting the need to reform the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and comments on the proposals for updating the Act contained in our recent White Paper, as well as a few proposals concerning other aspects of animal welfare.
    Mr. Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was widespread expectation of legislation in the previous Parliament, but that all we got was the White Paper? Is he further aware that there was great disappointment that no such proposal was included in this year's Gracious Speech? As the Home Office now has a much-reduced legislative burden because of last night's vote, will my hon. Friend give the House a clear assurance that the Government will introduce legislation on this matter during the next Session of Parliament?
    Mr. Mellor: During the previous Parliament considerable progress was made. There was agreement on the Council of Europe convention on animal experimentation. Many of the animal experiments carried out in Britain depend upon the export trade, so we must have common standards in the Western world. That was a major step forward. The Department's advisory committee reported on standards in Britain, which enabled us to bring forward a White Paper dealing with the difficult question of drawing a fair balance between those who must carry out these experiments and those who are concerned for animals. After considering the responses to the White Paper, we hope to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister accept that the majority of the experiments carried out on animals are for purely flippant, literally cosmetic reasons? Will he give an undertaking that within this parliamentary Session, which
    1002
    ends a year next November, legislation will be brought forward to restrict and confine these experiments to serious scientific purposes?
    Mr. Mellor: It is all very fine for the hon. Gentleman to say that experiments are carried out for flippant reasons, but there is no reason to believe that that is true. On the contrary, the present system, with a Home Office inspectorate, has led to a decline in the number of experiments. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read the White Paper he will see that it represents a real step forward in the protection of animals, while ensuring the protection of the public through necessary experiments. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman believes that the public do not need protection against dangerous products.
    Miss Fookes: May I tell my hon. Friend that I am tired of making excuses to constituents and others for the snaillike progress of the past four years? What guarantee can my hon. Friend give that there will be better progress this time?
    Mr. Mellor: We have published the White Paper, and representations on it will be received by the middle of August. The Government will then prepare legislation. I cannot say when it will be introduced, but I believe that it should be introduced as soon as possible.

    Immigration (Fiancés)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from fiancés from the Indian subcontinent to enter the United Kingdom for the purposes of marriage there have been so far in 1983; and what was the comparable figure for 1982.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): One thousand and seventy new applications for entry clearance were received from male fiancés in the Indian subcontinent in the first five months of this year, compared with 360 in the corresponding period in 1982. Those figures are broadly in line with the estimates given in the debate on the immigration rules.
    Mr. Marlow: Does not this threefold increase show that either the marriage habits in the Indian subcontinent have undergone some change or, alternatively, that marriage is being used as a means of migration to this country? Will my hon. Friend, in any event, reaffirm the statement made by the previous Government that the figures will be watched carefully and that if a change in legislation is needed it will be brought forward?
    Mr. Waddington: I remind my hon. Friend of what Viscount Whitelaw, as he now is, said during the debate on the immigration rules:
    "Our policy will be subject to continuous re-examination in the light of changing circumstances … in order to achieve our objective, which is strict immigration control." — [Official Report, 15 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 191–212.]
    We stand by that statement.
    Applications by husbands and male fiancés are running at an annual rate of 3,624, which is 2,394 more than the total for 1982. That should be compared with the estimate that we gave during the debate on the immigration rules of between 2,500 and 3,000. Futhermore, we are talking about applications, not acceptances.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister ensure that the interviews are arranged at the earliest possible date and the

    1003
    applications are processed with expedition, and also that complaints about the standard of interviews are fully investigated by his Department, with a view to ensuring that they are conducted fairly and objectively?
    Mr. Waddington: I hope to go to the Indian subcontinent soon, because I wish to compare what I see there with what is being said by members of Select Committees who have investigated this matter and visited the Indian subcontinent in recent years. They have told the House that they have been greatly impressed by the work carried out by the entry clearance officers.
    Mr. Budgen: If, after a year, my hon. and learned Friend finds that the new rules are allowing a large and increased number of fiancés into this country, will he undertake to ensure that the rules are tightened?
    Mr. Waddington: I repeat to my hon. Friend what I said earlier. We are determined to stick to our policy of strict immigration control, and we shall keep our immigration policy under continual review so as to achieve that aim.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have carried out surveys of the protective factor of residential accommodation as recommended in circular ES3/81.
    Mr. Hurd: No central record is kept. The new draft regulations laid on July 12 will, if approved, require local authorities to make plans for instructing and advising the public on protective measures to be taken against the effects of hostile attack.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such surveys require a substantial resource base and, even using voluntary levy, the authorities concerned may require assistance? Will my right hon. Friend's Department see that discussions take place to ensure that this happens?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. These surveys would attract civil defence grant in the usual way.

    Probation Service
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of the probation service.
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. and learned Friend intends to support and encourage the service in the effective performance of its important tasks.
    Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that if serious overcrowding in our prisons is to be reduced there must be an increase in the number of convicted people going on probation and greater use of parole and attendance centres with, in consequence, a greater strain on the probation service? If these changes occur, and there is a general agreement that they should, must there not also be a general increase in the resources available to the probation service?
    Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend, and there is that increase in resources. I remind hint that in the past four years the number of probation officers has increased by 11 per cent., the number of clerical support staff by 10
    1004
    per cent. and the number of ancillary workers who run the community service order scheme by 35 per cent. Before I hear too many jeers from the Opposition Benches, I point out that that is a far better record than any Labour Government achieved.
    Mr. Haynes: When will the Minister recognise that our courts wish to refer more and more people to the probation service, but cannot do so, because the service does not have the manpower to do the job properly? When will the Home Office stop interfering and messing about with the salary levels for probation officers, so that we can encourage people to go into the service?
    Mr. Mellor: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened to my previous answer. I wonder when last in a four-year period the number of people working in a service increased by so much. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick on the salary issue, which was concerned with a small number of Home Office-sponsored trainees. The probation service has amicably accepted the reasonable pay settlement offered to it for the coming year.
    Mr. Lyell: Will my hon. Friend do his best to liaise with the DHSS and other agencies to get people out of ineffective residential homes, which cost about £10,000 a year per person, and spend the money more effectively on rigorous forms of intermediate treatment that have about twice as good an anti-recidivism rate?
    Mr. Mellor: As ever, my hon. and learned Friend makes a valuable point. The amount of money being spent on intermediate treatment this year is double what it was last year. My hon. and learned Friend touches on another important aspect of this matter. It is not sufficient just to make further resources available—they must be used to the best advantage, and this is what we are Trying to achieve.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that, although the number of probation officers has increased along the lines that he has suggested, there has been an even greater increase in their work load and responsibilities and in the number of serious cases that they are handling? Is it not a fact that in many areas non-custodial sentences cannot be implemented because of lack of probation officers to supervise? This particularly applies to the introduction of the new community service order for 16-year-olds. Will he assure us that no one will go to prison, or to a young persons' establishment — when they could be properly supervised in the community because of the lack of probation officers?
    Mr. Mellor: We are always vulnerable to the charge —one always is—that we could do more. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's expertise and interest in these matters, but, to be fair, he should recognise what we are achieving in bringing about the introduction of community service orders for 16-year-olds. In 14 areas this is already available and will be in 10 more at the end of the summer. I have just attended the conference of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, and it is not making the same points as the hon. Gentleman. It recognises that probation officers have an increased work load, but equally recognises that it has had a fair deal from the Government in coping with that problem.

    Immigration
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his review of section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waddington: We are making good progress in reviewing the administrative criteria governing the operation of the repatriation scheme under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971, and hope to reach conclusions shortly.
    Mr. Proctor: In the course of my hon. and learned Friend's review of this provision, will he take account of the growing demand from the ethnic communities—not from their self-appointed leaders—for further assistance in the form of resettlement grants for those who genuinely wish to go home? How will he respond to that demand?
    Mr. Waddington: The introduction of a resettlement grant would require primary legislation. The present arrangements provide adequate assistance for those who genuinely want to go, and the fact that few actively seek financial assistance for travel shows that few want to go. The vast majority of the members of the ethnic minority communities settled here want to stay and have no interest in repatriation.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When other European countries such as West Germany and France are studying radically the consequences of the past large influx of alien population, is it not time for this country to move beyond the timidity and triviality of section 29?
    Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman is presumably referring to German guest workers and a scheme recently proposed by the German Government. There is no parallel between the situation in Germany and that here. The Germans are talking about people admitted on a temporary basis, but we are talking about people who, in the main, are settled here.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not a fact that the great majority of those settled here are either Commonwealth nationals, and as such have equal rights with British citizens, or former Commonwealth nationals who have gone to the trouble of acquiring British nationality? That being the case, does it not behove us to make these people welcome and as fully a part of our society as possible?
    Mr. Waddington: I agree.
    Mr. Winnick: If repatriation is to take place, is the Minister aware that the people who need to be repatriated are race hate-mongers and mischief-makers, such as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) who asked the question?
    Mr. Waddington: Offensive remarks of that nature do not help anyone. It is quite appropriate for us to speak our minds in the House, and it is perfectly proper for people who believe that there should be more scope for repatriation to say so. It is also my job to speak my mind, and I believe that the provisions now on the statute book are adequate.

    Dr. Clift (Evidence)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the results of his inquiries into the convictions in relation to which Dr. Clift gave forensic evidence.
    Mr. Brittan: When the inquiries have been completed to my satisfaction, I shall inform the House of the results.
    Mr. Ashley: In the meantime, may we take it that any other prisoners who have been convicted on Dr. Clift's discredited evidence will simply rot in gaol until the Home Office meanders its leisurely way to the end of the very long inquiries?
    Mr. Brittan: That is certainly not so. A number of the people concerned have already had their convictions quashed by the courts, so the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in making criticisms of that nature. Indeed, it is as a result of my Department's desire to look into these matters so fully that we are looking into 1,500 cases, 135 of them contested cases. Since the Preece case received wide publicity, we expected other people to come forward claiming that they had been wrongly convicted, but they have not done so. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if any cases come to light in which a reference to the Court of Appeal is justified, or any other action of that nature, I shall immediately take action.

    Nuclear Shelters
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now give details of the number of nuclear shelters on Merseyside and on the number of people they will hold.
    Mr. Hurd: It is for the local authority concerned to provide any public nuclear shelters. So far as we know, there are none on Merseyside. The new draft regulations laid on 12 July will, if approved, require local authorities to make plans for using existing buildings, other constructions and natural features as shelters for the public.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware that the general public feel that any shelters that are built will be used for VIPs, and that in the event of a nuclear attack they will be of no use to the majority of the people? Is he aware that civil defence will be useless in the event of a nuclear attack on our cities?
    Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. The nuclear deterrent works and, we believe, will continue to work. The risk of attack is not very great. However, it is sensible and necessary in our view to make plans, and to require local authorities to make plans, which could save lives and prevent suffering in the case of either nuclear or conventional attack.

    Police Constables (Training)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depatment what guidance he gives to chief officers as to the length of training a police constable should receive before he is considered sufficiently trained to go on the beat; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: Present guidance, approved by the Police Training Council in 1973, has been revised from time to time. The Police Training Council has now held a

    1007
    thorough review and has recommended a period of seven months, including 10 weeks on beat duties attached to an experienced tutor constable. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering this recommendation and hopes shortly to issue revised guidance to chief officers of police.
    Mr. Flannery: Is that not a totally insufficient period of training for young men and women who have to go out in uniform and face the most subtle and difficult problems in a society that is experiencing great difficulty? Does not the Minister agree that the qualifications are very low, and that we shall not be able to handle police-public problems until there is much longer training and much higher qualifications are demanded for entry to that training?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to my reply. My right hon. and learned Friend has recently received, and is now considering, new proposals that recommended a period of seven months, including 10 weeks on beat duties attached to an experienced tutor constable. That is in the light of experience such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the improvement in the number of polce officers on the beat now, as opposed to the time when we came to office?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly. The report issued by the Inspectorate of Constabulary this week showed that the total is now 121,000—I speak from memory—which is a substantial improvement. It neans that almost all forces are close to their establishment.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister accept the value of keeping a police officer in one place? Will he re-examine the structure whereby the only way to get promotion is to move from the place that the officer knows to one that he does not know?
    Mr. Hurd: That is a matter for chief officers. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that circumstances vary very much from one force to another and that it would be wrong to lay down a general guideline.
    Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that a seven-months training period is long enough for the purpose, especially in areas of great difficulty such as the Metropolitan area? How does the seven-month period compare, for example, with police forces on the continent of Europe?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. and learned Friend will consider these matters when he looks at the new recommendations, but they are new recommendations put forward in the light of recent experience and developments, such as Lord Seaman's report.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Rookerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Prime Minister, as leader of the nation and as a housewife, give us her practical advice and tell us what her practical advice is to the unemployed and their families about eating healthily within their means, in view of the assessment by the National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education that the average British diet puts people at risk?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that those people need advice from me, and I think that it would be presumptuous of me to give it.
    Mr. Marlow: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the United States is sufficiently representing Western interests in the middle east? If not, does she believe that Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular, should be taking an initiative in that area of the world?
    The Prime Minister: There is no improvement whatever to report on the situation in the middle east. It is very serious indeed. The European Community will be considering whether there is anything that we can say or do to help to bring peace and security to that region.
    Mr. Foot: When the right hon. Lady says that she is not prepared to give advice to some of the poorest people in the land, is that not what she sought to do last week? Has the Cabinet had a chance to consider the growing anxiety throughout the land about the way in which some of the poorest people may be treated under her Government? Will she give an absolute guarantee that supplementary benefit is to be sustained, because that provides the minimum needs that must be met if proper standards are to be sustained? Will the right hon. Lady give a guarantee that she will protect the standard of supplementary benefit throughout the coming years?
    The Prime Minister: No. I cannot go further than the pledge given previously in the manifesto that pensions and other long-term linked benefits would be protected. Supplementary pension is such a linked benefit, and is therefore protected.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that it is not only the protection of the standards of people on supplementary pensions; there are many other people who depend for a minimum standard of life on the protection of supplementary benefit? Does she accept that if unemployment continues to increase, as it has done under her Government, and if the value of the benefit is cut, as she is now suggesting, we shall soon have 8 million or 9 million people living on the poverty line? Is she content that such a thing should happen in this country?
    The Prime Minister: There is no definition of the poverty line — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — and there never has been under any Government—when they have answered from this Dispatch Box. We gave a pledge in our manifesto that pensions and other linked long-term benefits would be price protected. I cannot extend that pledge.
    Mr. Foot: In the light of the anxiety, which can now only deepen as a result of her answers, will the right hon. Lady ask the Cabinet to look afresh at this matter to see whether the minimum standard of life of some of the poorest people in Britain cannot be guaranteed over the coming years?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot go further than what I have said. The retirement pension and other long-term

    1009
    linked benefits are price protected. Those long-term linked benefits include widows' pension, industrial death benefit when it is paid by means of a widow's or widower's pension, war disablement and industrial disablement pension, war widow's pension, attendance allowance, invalidity care allowance and non-contributory invalidity pension.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that successive Governments, including her own, have understandably refused to give the House or the country any information on the British world trade in armaments. As the annual report of the State Department to Congress contains a detailed analysis of British world trade in armaments, will she comment on, first, the relevance of that rule and, secondly, the disclosure in that report that of the $3·24 billion worth of arms supplied to the so-called front-line states, $1 billion has been supplied by the United Kingdom? Will she comment on that, particularly in the light of the fact that most of those states are bankrupt and, therefore, we can only assume that the bill has been met by the British taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: If my hon. friend wishes to ask about a particular consignment, obviously we shall tell him. However, he knows that every order is looked at individually and on its merits. Certainly armaments have been supplied to the front-line states, but when each order was taken a judgment was made by whatever Government were in office as to whether, in all the circumstances, it was wise to meet it. That, again, has been the practice of every Government.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can the right hon. Lady recollect an occasion previous to last night when a Prime Minister was so mercifully saved from his or her folly by the votes of so many wiser colleagues?
    The Prime Minister: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman used his freedom to vote in his own way. Does he seek to deny it to any other hon. Members of the House?
    Dr. McDonaldasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. MacDonald: Where is the morality in squandering £280 million this year on tax cuts to the rich instead of raising child benefits by a further 50p per week and raising benefits for the unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: Child benefit, as the hon. Lady knows, will be at a record level when it is increased in November. That is better than anything achieved by the Government that she supported. I imagine that tax relief is the subject of the Finance Bill which is now going through the House. The 1 million people who will be better off as a result of the Finance Bill include one-sixth of all stevedores and dockers, one-sixth of all transport foremen, 5,000 miners, a quarter of all journalists, many working couples, half of all medical practitioners, the heads of many secondary schools, and half of all university academics.
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Walker: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the press reports on the so-called public inquiry that was held by the Strathclyde region into the Coulport base for Trident, stating that the inquiry has been based on fundamental errors, which has led to a colossal waste of taxpayers' money and resources? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is another example of a Labour local authority spending public money for political dogma?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read the complete report, but I have read the reports of it in Scottish newspapers. I understand that one of the defence economics lecturers at Strathclyde university said that it contained so many errors that it could not be seriously considered.
    Mr. Heddleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the road to home ownership passes through Bolsover and Birmingham, Sparkbrook? Is it not curious that some 18 months after the former agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) bought his council house, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a speech this week agreeing that most council tenants want to buy their homes? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend take time today to invite Labour Members to condemn those Labour-controlled local authorities that are still denying council tenants the opportunity to exercise their democratic right?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, gladly. If council tenants live within the area of such a Labour council, they should apply directly to the Department of the Environment to seek help with the purchase of their home.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Now that Brazil is suggesting a moratorium on her debts and the right hon. Lady is making offstage noises about not bailing Brazil out, will she give a guarantee, in order that action can speak louder than words, that she will bring in legislation to force the Inland Revenue to stop allowing tax relief to banks on all bad and doubtful loans? The Labour party will give a guarantee to help get such legislation through and provide her with a bigger majority than we got on the hanging motion last night.
    The Prime Minister: Brazil is negotiating for another IMF tranche today and it is hoped that those negotiations will be completed by tomorrow. The President of Brazil made a statement today. We have not seen its full text but it looks as if Brazil has taken certain action. That may or may not mean that the next slice of IMF aid will be released. [Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
    If any Government were to refuse tax relief on bad debts to banks, the effect on British banks and those who deposit with them would be calamitous.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When my right hon. Friend has further meetings with her colleagues today, will she

    1011
    invite them not to enter into consultation with the new phoney Association of London Authorities, which is merely a front organisation for the Labour party, but to continue consultations with the long-established London Boroughs Association?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall pay due regard to his warning and also consult our many London Members in the House.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read the proceedings of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which contains the draft report of its chairman, her distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw)? As that draft report says that Fortress Falklands is untenable in the long term, will she give a clear indication now under what circumstances and in what conditions she and her Government would be willing to enter into discussions with a future democratic Government of Argentina about the future of the Falklands?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that this is an uncompleted draft report to which the Government are not required to give a formal reply. However, we have noted that the draft conclusions end with the firm statement that:
    1012
    "Your Committee cannot yet recommend the resumption of negotiations with Argentina on the sovereignty issue or any matters relating thereto."
    I see no prospect of entering into negotiations with Argentina at present, and I have no intention of negotiating sovereignty.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no acceptable definition of poverty, does not she accept that the fact and presence of poverty is not in doubt? Since those who receive short-term benefits are at least as poor as those who receive long-term benefits, will she give an assurance that the fact will be fully taken into account when the Cabinet next considers public expenditure?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend will know, many of those who receive short-term benefits receive supplementary benefit if the amounts are inadequate for their purposes. For example, the unemployed often receive a rather larger proportion of their income from supplementary benefit than from unemployment pay. However, I cannot go further than the promises that I have given, upon which my right hon. Friend fought the last election.

Malta (Arrest of British Citizen)
3.30 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrest of a British citizen, Mr. Anthony Price, by the Maltese authorities.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): Mr. Anthony Price, a British citizen who was visiting Malta, was detained by the Maltese police on 13 April and, despite strong diplomatic and legal representations, held until 20 June, without charges being preferred. Mr. Price was released on that date by order of a magistrate, but the authorities did not allow him to leave the island. While he was still trying to get the courts to uphold his right to leave Malta he was rearrested on 11 July and charged yesterday with conspiracy to subvert the Government of Malta. We shall continue to provide him with appropriate consular assistance and press for a speedy trial. The preliminary hearing has now been set for 27 July.
Mr. Rowlands: I should like to express my gratitude and that of Mr. Price's parents to the Under-Secretary of State. The House will know that his parents are beside themselves with worry. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the patient efforts that have been made for more than 70 days to resolve the utterly bewildering and bemusing behaviour of the Maltese authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman simply confirm that all the evidence available to him and his office shows that there is not a shred of truth in the allegation or charge made against
1014
Anthony Price that he was in any way involved in trying to subvert the Maltese authorities? Will he also confirm that this trumped-up charge has been brought to justify the Maltese authorities' incredible behaviour, in that for 70 days or more they have prevented one British citizen from leaving Malta?
Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his appreciation of the help that has already been given to Mr. Price. We totally share his concern about this affair, and in particular the fact that he was detained without charge for such a long period. As far as evidence is concerned, at this stage it will be a matter for the Maltese courts to decide.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: In view of Malta's splendid record, particularly in the second world war, is it not very sad that there should be so many breaches of human rights in that Commonwealth country? Will Her Majesty's Government seek with our Commonwealth partners, to bring pressure to bear in order to secure decency in that country which we love so much?
Mr. Whitney: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government's record on human rights in Malta and elsewhere is well known, well substantiated and actively pursued.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that the disgraceful and hysterical conduct of Mr. Mintoff has often given great cause for anxiety? Will he pursue this case with the greatest energy?
Mr. Whitney: As I pointed out in my statement, we are most certainly pursuing as far as possible any consular help that we can give to Mr. Price, and we shall continue to do so.

Business of the House
3.33 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I8 JULY — Second Reading of the Telecommunications Bill.
Motion relating to the Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) Regulations.
Motion on the British Shipbuilders' Borrowing Powers (Increse of Limit) Order.
TUESDAY I9 JULY—Debate on a motion to approve the statement on the defence estimates 1983, Cmnd. 8951.
Motions on Members' pay and allowances.
WEDNESDAY 20 JULY—Conclusion of the debate on the statement on the Defence Estimates.
The House will be asked to pass all outstanding Estimates.
Motion on the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations.
Motions on Northern Ireland orders on housing benefits, housing and housing (consequential amendments).
THURSDAY 2I JULY—Motions on the rate reduction reports 1983–84 on the (Kirkcaldy district), the (Glasgow district), the (Stirling district) and the (Lothian region).
Proceedings on the Medical Bill [Lords], the Car Tax Bill [Lords] and on the Value Added Tax Bill [Lords] which are consolidation measures.
FRIDAY 22 JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 25 JULY — Motion on the summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to progress of business, it is hoped to propose that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Friday 29 July.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has already made some changes in the extremely crowded programme that he originally proposed to put to the House, and I am grateful to him for that. However, there are still some alterations that could be made that would be of great benefit to the House. We hope that the motion on the regulations concerning local government that have been set down for Monday can be postponed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that.
The Government have an extremely wretched record on women's rights and equal pay. They have harmed many of the rights previously established and we therefore believe that further and better time should be given to discuss the proposal on equal pay, as it could have controversial aspects to it.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider afresh the proposition that I put to him last week about a debate on the economic package that the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented to the House? Perhaps he will comment on that. Given the Prime Minister's answers today, and the statements that have come from the Government on various aspects of the issue, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the benefit uprating regulations will be given full and prime time for discussion
1016
by the House? There is growing anxiety in the country about the way in which the Government are dealing with all such questions.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will add some of the changes that I have suggested to those that he has already made.
Mr. Biffen: I accept at once that next week's business provides a very full programme. It shows why the House is working through to the end of the month.
We are prepared to consider through the usual channels the anxiety that has been expressed about the local government debate that is proposed for Monday, and the same is true of the representations made about the equal pay regulations. However, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will allow me to dissent entirely from his ungenerous premise about the Conservative party's record on that topic.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the benefit uprating regulations, and I shall certainly bear that in mind when that issue is considered. Doubtless there will be consultations through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman requested a debate on the very wise economic measure that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a week ago. However, the House will recollect that on that occasion the statement was subject to a very full examination and since then we have had quite a while to consider it in the context of the Finance Bill. I note the interest and suggest that we continue to discuss the matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Edward du Cann: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to reconsider the arrangements that he is proposing to the House for dealing with the Supplementary Estimates totalling about £1,000 million, on Wednesday night? If he proposes to deal with them formally, does he agree that there is something improper about inviting the House to pass, on the nod, expenditure of such magnitude without proper surveillance, scrutiny or discussion? Would not it be better to postpone the passage of the Supplementary Estimates at least until the Select Committees are reappointed and the necessary scrutiny can be given to that expenditure? Alternatively, could we make other arrangements so that we can have a full discussion about the way in which the House proposes to spend taxpayers' money?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He will understand that I have a great deal of sympathy with it, but what is proposed for next Wednesday derives entirely from the absence of the departmental Select Committees and the Liaison Committee. I can give my right hon. Friend the full-hearted assurance that what is proposed is entirely to do with the current situation and should not in any sense be taken as a precedent. I shall consider my right hon. Friend's question.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement to the House about the implications of the Chancellor's statement on cuts in education, especially since the Prime Minister wrote during the election campaign to one of her constituents saying that she intended that spending on the universities should remain at the same level after 1984–85?

1017
I thank the Government for responding to the request that originated from this Bench that the equal pay motion should be taken on the Floor of the House and not in a Statutory Instruments Committee.
Mr. Biffen: I am always grateful for such compliments as are paid in this wearisome world. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concern about the statement to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: In view of the motion that the Leader of the House has placed on the Order Paper on the difficult question of Members' pay and conditions, does my right hon. Friend recall the pledge that I made to the House on behalf of the Cabinet of which he and I at the time were members that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, the recommendations of the independent review committee would be implemented? Am I to understand that that promise is no longer operative?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that matter will be thoroughly debated on Tuesday evening.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the operational control of nuclear weapons and missiles in Britain? Is he aware that many hon. Members believe that before we rise for the recess we should have the opportunity to debate the exact arrangements for operational control, the level at which they happen and what contingency arrangements the Prime Minister has in mind? The statement that the Prime Minister made to the House in answer to questions did not explain exactly how the operational control would work.
Mr. Biffen: Subject to the Chair's decision, I should think that the speech that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make could be made during the two-day debate on the defence Estimates.
Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful for the fact that there is to be a two-day debate on the defence White Paper, which reverts to the earlier practice? May we have an assurance that the tradition of having single service days will be maintained so that in the autumn we can have a full day's debate on each of the services?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says. Perhaps he will allow me to defer any more substantive comment until the autumn.
Mr. Robert Parry: Has the Leader of the House seen early day motion 21 about the execution of Baha'i men and women in Iran which has been signed by 120 hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will the Government make the strongest protest to the authorities in Iran against the persecution and murder of those unfortunate people on the ground of religion?
[That this House condemns the cold-blooded executions by the Iranian Government of 10 women and six men of the Baha'i faith; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make strong protests against these executions.]
Mr. Biffen: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's interest in the topic and I shall, of course, refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is difficult to reconcile his role as Leader of the House and defender of Back-Benchers with the terms of the resolutions on Members' salaries and conditions? Will he reconsider the terms of the resolutions and put forward proposals that recognise the logic and justice of the Plowden report as well as the need for a reasonable degree of respect?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise my hon. Friend's feelings. The motions are now before the House, but at the end of the day the House must decide whether to accept them.
Mr. George Foulkes: What arrangements has the Leader of the House made for regular meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to be held in Edinburgh in this Session?
Mr. Biffen: To date, none. If I had clear evidence that there was a preponderant desire for that, of course I should consider it because it is not a matter on which any Leader of the House would have a closed mind.
Mr. John Stokes: In view of the votes last night on the death penalty, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will not cease to protect the poor and the unimportant in our society? Will he also never forget that we are Members of the House of Commons and represent the common people as well as the intellectuals and progressives and all the talkers in the media?
Mr. Biffen: I am more than delighted to give that assurance. It is appropriate to record also that, whatever one's views on capital punishment, it must be a unifying factor throughout the House that there is a great and overwhelming determination to provide a proper structure for the protection and defence of law and order.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the Leader of the House consider early day motion 73 which extends good wishes to Nelson Mandela on his 65th birthday?
[That this House extends its good wishes to Nelson Mandela on reaching his 65th birthday on 18th July; and calls upon the South African Government to release him from imprisonment forthwith to enable him to play a full part in the struggle to achieve the free, democratic and unracial South Africa which has been his life and work.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is appropriate, after the decision by the MCC yesterday, that the House should be able to express its opposition to the apartheid system in South Africa? Is not it appropriate that that should be done by sending Nelson Mandela best wishes on his birthday since he has stood against the apartheid regime? Will the Leader of the House find time for a discussion on that subject?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman obviously feels strongly on that subject, and that is proper. I suggest that he tries his good fortune in the arrangements for the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill debate on Monday week.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I refer to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and ask two questions about Select

1019
Committees? First, when does he expect that they will be set up again and what is holding up the decision? Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that reference has been made to a draft report which has not been fully considered? Many scores of amendments remain to be debated and no final vote has been taken. Why did the report have to be published? Will he put that point to the Procedure Committee because I am sure that it affects the deliberations of many Select Committees?
Mr. Biffen: The answer to the second question may be that the decision to publish is within the competence of officers of the Select Committees. I shall look into the matter and be in touch with my hon. Friend. On the more general issue of departmental Committees, the reason for not immediately establishing the Select Committees was set out in my speech at the end of the debate on the Loyal Address. I hope that we can proceed in the autumn.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who are rising now.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise the need for a wide-ranging debate on Northern Ireland and its future? Will he bear in mind that if the events now taking place there were taking place on the mainland on anywhere near the same scale, and if they involved murder and all the other crimes occurring in Northern Ireland, there would be no hesitation about having not just one debate, but a series of debates? Why, therefore, is there reluctance to debate Northern Ireland? If we will not initiate such a debate before the House rises, can he give a promise that it will be one of the first priorities when the House returns?
Mr. Biffen: Any Leader of the House is under pressure to hold debates on a variety of subjects, which in their totality could not conceivably be encompassed within the time available.
The business that I have just announced covers the week when Northern Ireland questions come up for answer and the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, when the hon. Gentleman may raise this issue. I recommend that he take that course.
Mr. W. Benyon: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), is it not a most
extraordinary quirk of our procedure that the appointment of Select and other all-party Committees is being held up by the archaic election procedures of the Labour party? Why does he not move a motion that the Conservative and minor party representatives on these Committees be appointed and let the dear old Labour party chip in when it is ready?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend should not be so tempting. He will recollect that in my speech at the conclusion of the debate on the Loyal Address I said specifically that it was not the electoral procedures of the Labour party that were responsible for the Government wishing to wait until this autumn before establishing the departmental Committees. I re-emphasise that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Bill, which provides for the abolition of royalties, and allows the marginal oilfields—in private hands, of course—to
1020
operate with Government assistance, is before the House? He should be consistent and encourage the Cabinet to look at the possibility of a parallel Bill to provide assistance to marginal pits.
Mr. Biffen: In a spirit of end-of-term generosity, I will refer that suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Anthony Steen: The matter I raise with the Leader of the House is of importance to all hon. Members and concerns whether answers to written questions should be received by the Press Gallery before they are received by the Members of Parliament who asked them. I refer particularly to what happened on last Tuesday, 12 July. I had tabled four questions to the Department of Transport and three to the Secretary of State for Defence.
There was no answer on the Letter Board by 5 pm, and by 5.30 pm television and radio companies in the southwest were calling me for a comment on the answers to the questions. I had to ask them what the answers were. At 6.30 pm I called on the Secretary of State for Transport and the Defence Department—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked his question.
Mr. Steen: I just want to explain the events, Mr. Speaker, so that hon. Members on both sides—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is business questions.
Mr. Steen: Will the Leader of the House please investigate the system within the House by which questions sent by Departments can reach the Press Gallery sooner than Members of Parliament?
Mr. Biffen: If my hon. Friend will let me have the details of the problems that he has encountered, shall have those matters investigated.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Bearing in mind the refusal of the Prime Minister to publish the CPRS report, and given the growing suspicion on Merseyside that she has something to hide because the report predicted the discontent in Toxteth 12 months before it occurred, will the Leader of the House carry out the quasi-promises that he made last week to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? These were that we should have a full debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on the events leading up to the problems on Merseyside? That would enable the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The rule applies to the hon. Member as it does to the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). This is business questions. It is not the time to make long statements.
Mr. Wareing: May we debate the advantages of council house sales to people in my constituency where 40 per cent. of the adult population is unemployed?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes this week the point that he put to me with force last week. I am afraid that I can give no different answer from the one that I gave last week.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend recall that part of the Gracious Speech, referring to Hong Kong, stated clearly and properly that Parliament

1021
would have shortly to make up its mind on difficult questions. As the talks are progressing and I believe that the latest stage finished yesterday in Beijing, will my right hon. Friend consider representing seriously to the Foreign Secretary that it is about time that he made a statement to the House about what is going on. Many hon. Members may well be surprised at what is happening. The Government will be well advised to prepare people for what we may have to face in future.
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. I shall see that his views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend intend to put forward on Tuesday the Government's views on long-term arrangements for dealing with the pay of Members of Parliament?
Mr. Biffen: The debate clearly will be on the resolutions that will be before the House for determination. However, I have no doubt that the debate will run rather wider than that.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that again this afternoon, during Home Office questions, a large number of Conservative Members expressed their considerable anxiety about the disfranchisement of electors who are away on holiday during elections? Does he agree with me that it is important that we should have a debate before we rise for the summer recess, bearing in mind that there will be municipal elections in certain parts of the United Kingdom next May and European elections throughout the United Kingdom in June?
Mr. Biffen: The Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill will give hon. Members an opportunity to raise that issue. I recognise the interest that there is in it and the desire for legislation during this Parliament's lifetime.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. Friend take note that some Conservative Members will be less than happy with the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) relating to Northern Ireland business? Many of us would welcome an opportunity for a full debate, especially in view of the demonstrable failure of the Nothern Ireland Assembly.
Mr. Biffen: There is simply no prospect of such a debate before we rise for the recess. I take note of the representations that have been made on this topic. They will be considered when we return in the autumn.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that hon. Members face in obtaining answers on the difficult and increasing problem of glue sniffing? Is he aware that they are being shunted between the Secretary of State for Social Services,
1022
the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Home Secretary? Will he take steps to ascertain which Minister is responsible for handling the matter so that something can be done?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into the point that is exercising my hon. Friend and I shall get in touch with him.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early day motion 74 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and 108 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House which pays tribute to our former friend and colleague Mr. Keith Wickenden, the former Member for Dorking, who was killed so tragically in a flying accident last Saturday, and extend our sympathy to his wife and family?
[That this House expresses its deep regret at the untimely death of Keith Wickenden on 9th July; records its appreciation of his contribution to the House and his friendship with many whilst Member of Parliament for Dorking from 1979 to 1983; and extends its sympathy to his widow and family in their loss.]
Mr. Biffen: I gladly use this occasion to add my sentiments to those expressed by the motion. All who served in the House of Commons with Keith Wickenden were greatly privileged to have had his companionship.
Mr. Neil Thorne: When is the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments likely to consider the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983? Is it likely to be before the summer recess? The matter has been postponed once and is now considered most urgent.
Mr. Biffen: That is a middle stump question. I do not know the answer, but I shall look into the matter at once.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment that will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Monday 25 July.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Wednesday 20 July. A list showing the subjects and times will be published later that day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Council of Fisheries Ministers
4.2 pm
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting in Brussels on 11 and 12 July. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department, I represented the United Kingdom.
After further lengthy discussions the Council could not reach agreement on the package of proposals for total allowable catches, quotas, associated conservation provisions and structural implementing measures which were under consideration. Nor was it possible, because one member state invoked its vital national interest, to reach agreement on interim measures that would have permitted fishermen from member states and from Norway to continue fishing for North sea herring.
However, the principal problem was on North sea herring and it was agreed that a Commission group of experts should be asked to carry out an urgent study of the allocation of quotas for that stock. This is a technical study and it is clearly established that the group will be concerned only with the application of the criteria laid down in the Council declaration of 30 May 1980. The work will he completed in time to report to the Council at its next meeting, now scheduled for 25 and 26 July. In the meantime, fishing for herring in the North sea by those member states that have exhausted their interim quotas and by Norway will cease.
I took the opportunity to press the Commission on the need for more rapid implementation of the arrangements for enforcement. I am glad to say that the Commission undertook to have at least some of its inspectors in post by the end of September and to have log books in operation before 1 November. Those will be significant steps towards more effective control, to which I attach considerable importance.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Does not the Minister agree that during the past few weeks the common fisheries policy has become a complete shambles, that it has collapsed at the very first hurdle and come apart at the seams? Everyone recognises that. How can it be denied that the policy could not work when the allocation of quotas was left until the very last minute and when the inspection system is not yet in force?
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about his hopes for effective control and policing and said that some of the inspectors would be in post by the end of September. Yet there will be a total of only 13 inspectors for the entire EC waters. Is not that nonsense? What reason is there to believe that the same story will not be repeated year after year and species after species? Is that not the whole point of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Minister's statement? He said:
"the Council could not reach agreement on the package of proposals for total allowable catches, quotas, associated conservation provisions".
The matter is serious.
The policing problem has affected not only us but the Norwegians, with whom we have an agreement. It was not their fault that overfishing took place—it was the fault of our EC partners. Is it not true that the policing is wholly
1024
inadequate? The Minister said that some of the 13 inspectors would be in post by September, yet were not the original proposals for 39 inspectors?
Is it not ironic that the fishermen themselves had to go to Brussels to plead for policing? Is that not something that the Government should initiate on behalf of the fishermen? Is it not time that we took over full control of the 200-mile zone—that we could have were we not in the EC—and at least exercised policing duties in our own waters?
The Minister did not mention the effect of his statement on the fishing industry of the west coast of Scotland, where the fishermen are terrified of pressure from fishermen from other areas both outwith and within the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman take action to deal with one large gap? What is there to prevent Norwegian, Faroese and other fishermen with quotas of up to 7,000 or 8,000 tonnes fishing above the quotas and discharging their fish into foreign klondikers for trans-shipping? Were we not promised legislation to close that loophole? If the Minister will introduce such legislation next week, we shall give him every support. I wish that he had the resolution to do so.
If there were a sudden increase in heavy fishing during the next week or two, would there be anything to prevent such a glut affecting our ability to deal with the marketing of the fish and, therefore, it being slanted off to the foreign klondikers, which would mean that the entire additional value would be lost to Britain?
When the common fisheries policy was introduced by the Minister's predecessor he described it as a deal that would last for 20 years. Will it? He described it as a superb deal. Is it?
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman asked many questions. He spoke first of the common fisheries policy collapsing, coming apart at the seams and being a shambles. That is not true. The agreement at which we arrived on 25 January on quota percentages, access and technical conservation measures was of crucial importance to the future of the Community's fisheries. In general, that agreement is being observed. I stand entirely by what my predecessor said about the agreement providing a framework for the next 20 years.
The hon. Gentleman said that policing was inadequate and that the United Kingdom should carry out its own policing. Each member state does its own policing to 200 miles or to the median line. If the hon. Gentleman is making allegations about the inadequacy of the British policing force and our fisheries protection service, I would be glad to hear full details of his complaints. The fishing community is a great deal more pleased than the hon. Gentleman about the undertaking from the Commissioner on dates of application of the inspectorate of existing national inspectors. He said that originally there were to be 40 inspectors. That number included secretaries and others. Therefore, the figure he gave was artificial. We shall have to wait and see what happens when the 13 inspectors are in post.
There are, of course, various quotas for individual states in the west of Scotland herring fishery. We shall police that area carefully to ensure that the fishery is not overfished. If we find abuses, we shall not hesitate to bring those who broke the law to our courts.
Sir Walter Clegg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase in the inspectorate will be

1025
welcomed by the fishing industry? Is he further aware that the industry is angry about enforcement because the quota system cannot stand on its own without proper enforcement facilities? He can expect every back-up from the House to increase the efficiency of the inspectorate.
Mr. Jopling: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that our fishermen are not concerned about the policing in British waters; they are concerned about the standard of policing by other states of their waters. If anyone has any complaint about our fisheries protection service I shall be glad to hear them. The chief purpose in setting up the super-inspectorate is to ensure that other states are carrying out their policing properly.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the two statements that he has made since taking office show that the common fisheries policy will run on the same lines as the common agricultural policy? The Minister comes to the House deploring the effects of that policy and yet he is unable to do anything about it.
With regard to the fallback position on the west coast, about which he spoke in his last statement, is he aware that fishermen are afraid that the stocks that have been safeguarded for six years, and which are only beginning to recover, will be decimated again? Will he guarantee that at least the protection by the United Kingdom will be ample to prevent the stocks being wiped out?
Mr. Jopling: We shall do our utmost to ensure that the stocks in our own waters are properly conserved by our own fisheries protection force. I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the common fisheries policy being in tatters. In general, the agreements that were made on quotas and total allowable catches for the huge majority of stocks in Community waters are being observed by individual countries. Access to our waters is being controlled, which has been a huge step forward. I do not hear complaints about that. I think that everyone has understood that it was impossible to make a deal over herring in the North sea last January because, as the right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago, the fishery had been closed for six years. We always knew that this would be difficult and so it has been.
Sir Michael Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend not take too much notice of the entirely negative but, alas, customary reaction from the Opposition? The difficulties of the fishing agreement are apparent to all, but progress has been made. Will he take note that fishermen — certainly those in my constituency — are chiefly concerned about policing? They are not satisfied that other nations will carry out policing as efficiently as ourslves. I hope that we can make progress on this matter.
Mr. Jopling: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. The industry was pleased to hear that we have at last got the Commissioner to put firm dates on the placing of inspectors in post and on the use of log books.
Mr. James Wallace: Does the Minister agree that it is a sad reflection on the common fisheries policy that we have reached the stage where a ban on fishing is welcomed by fishermen? Is he aware that, six to seven months after the agreement on the common fisheries policy was reached, there is still no effective policing? Is he further aware that many Scottish skippers
1026
believe that there has been considerable overfishing by Dutch and Norwegian skippers? If agreements are reached on quotas when the Ministers next meet on 25 and 26 July, will it be their intention to open up the North sea fishing grounds again some two months before even a small number of the enforcement provisions, which have been promised by the end of September, come into operation? Can United Kingdom fisheries protection officers board the eastern European klondikers to check the level of catches trans-shipped to them by Norwegian vessels?
Mr. Jopling: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, if foreign ships are fishing in British waters, which come under the jurisdiction of our fisheries protection force, it can carry out the necessary investigations. If the law is being broken it can bring them to the courts. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks because I, too, noticed a report in The Guardian this morning that the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation had welcomed the reimposition of a complete ban on the taking of herring in these circumstances. The hon. Gentleman made the allegation that others have made, but which none has substantiated, when he suggested that policing in our waters is ineffective. If the hon. Gentleman has specific cases to bring to my notice I would be anxious to hear about them. Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether, if we reach agreement on North sea herring on 25 and 26 July, we shall be opening that fishery again. I hope that that will be possible. I hope that we can get agreement on the broad package and open that fishery once more.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I applaud my right hon. Friend's recognition that policing is the essence of the success of the common fisheries policy. Will he, however, at the next Council meeting call the bluff of the other member states to make them table exactly what they propose to do, to allocate specific dates when they will carry out their proposals, and to see whether they will co-ordinate with us a system of policing that will bring to bear all the available air and naval resources to make the common fisheries policy work?
Mr. Jopling: I get the feeling that it is the general desire of the member states and their Ministers to make the policy work, and to have adequate conservation measures so that stocks can be built up over the years. There is disquiet, as my hon. Friend said, at the standard of policing. I hope that when log books are fully in use by skippers and we have a super-inspectorate we shall see a reduction in the number of complaints about the standard of policing by other states.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The problems relating to North sea herring arose after a long ban was lifted at four days' notice and then heavy overfishing of quotas was allowed. Now we have this mess. Does this not show the complete inability of EC institutions to handle fishing matters? Grimsby fishermen believe that Norwegian fishing for herring should be allowed to continue so that there is no danger of retaliation against Grimsby vessels in Norwegian waters that are currently fishing at their seasonal high. As the herring pickle is holding up all other total allowable catches and quotas, why does not the Minister take the obvious step? Why does he not take this matter from the incompetent, dithering hands of the EC and impose his own allocations on vessels in our waters instead of supinely sitting there?
Mr. Jopling: I do not do so because I believe that we should concentrate on maintaining the rule of law within the common fisheries policy. If we were to start breaking the law it would be difficult for us to lecture others. There was a proposal before the Council that we should allow Norway to continue to fish North sea herring, although all the other member states would have had to stop. I do not think that our fishermen would have accepted that proposal. They would have been extremely annoyed. We were successful in blocking that. I hope very much that the Norwegians, who, like the rest of us, are having to stop fishing for herring in the North sea, will be patient until the next meeting of the Council, when, I hope, we shall reach agreement on the whole package.
Mr. David Harris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that anyone who has considered these matters agrees that the implementation of the common fisheries policy was bound to take time? I welcome my right hon. Friend's move in at least starting the enforcement of the measures, but will he please take note of pleas from Conservative Members to put more effort into the inspectorate? Thirteen inspectors are not enough. It is a matter not only of numbers but of the powers that those inspectors will have. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter urgently?
Mr. Jopling: We shall continue to press the Commission to establish and strengthen its inspectorate. Let us see how we get on with the 13 inspectors when they are in place and how the arrangement works. I agree with my hon. Friend when he says that the full establishment of the common fisheries policy was sound to take time. At the moment we are being held up because it was impossible in January of this year to add an arrangement on North sea herring to all the other arrangements that we made at that time, for the simple reason that the fishery had been closed for six years and there was no basis on which to make an arrangement for the future.
Mr. Stuart Randall: When the right hon. Gentleman was with his European counterparts did he discuss the possible extension of Isle of Man fishing limits? Does he accept that the Isle of Man Government have the power to make a unilateral decision to extend their fishing limits? Does he agree that nobody in the British Government will act, or has the power to act, to protect the interests of my constituents in West Hull?
Mr. Jopling: No, there was no discussion about the position of the Isle of Man. That matter has not come before the Council. We are, however, concerned about the reports we have seen and if they become more solid, no doubt we shall be debating the matter in the future. As for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in West Hull, I can only tell him that when we met the representatives of the fishing industry at the conclusion of the Council meeting, they had no criticism of the way in which we had conducted the negotiations.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having displayed in these difficult negotiations the same patience and firmness that he used to display as Chief Whip Will he convey to the Danes that they are in danger of losing the support in this House of some of their oldest and proudest friends? Is he aware that he will have full backing if he continues
1028
to give robust support to the British interest, while at the same time seeking an agreement within the Community, which in the long run is in the interests of us all?
Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend's closing remark, because if we can get the common fisheries policy to work, which I have every confidence we can, that will be a huge bonus for us. I am grateful for his first remarks; he will agree that Chief Whips in general are extraordinary people. As for the Danes, if he or any other hon. Members can explain to them how important it is to reach agreement on this package of issues — which has already taken three meetings of the Fisheries Council and will take another one on 25–26 July — that would be very welcome indeed.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat nauseating that Labour Members, supposedly members of the party of the brotherhood of man, should gloat over the breakdown of every kind of international co-operation, and that those who have done everything they can to make it impossible for the European community to reach any decision should adduce that as a reason for not having Community policies?
Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have noticed over many years how Labour Members when in opposition gloat over all the gloom and doom that they can find.
Mr. Michael Brown: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on making representations on policing, may I urge him, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) to use his skill at threatening others, in particular to threaten those in the EC who are not prepared to ensure that the policy is implemented? I recognise the need to try to ensure that that policy, which his predecessor agreed in January this year, is implemented if at all possible. Will he not hesitate to threaten to use the veto on behalf of Britain, should that be necessary?
Mr. Jopling: I do not recall ever threatening anybody in my life, at any rate not for many years. If I ever thought it was necessary to threaten, I should hate to telegraph that fact; I would prefer to make the decision when it came to it. My hon. Friend is right when he speaks about implementation. As I explained, we made a big effort in the Council to press the Commission to have proper implementation of the policy through the inspectorate and by the use of log books. I now have a great deal more confidence that the policy will be properly implemented in future.
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the two hon. Gentlemen who wish to ask supplementaries, but it is not within my recollection that either was present for the statement.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I was, Mr. Speaker.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I apologise for my failure to be here when the Minister made the statement; I had very important business elsewhere.
I must be one of the few hon. Members who comes from a fishing family. In addition, I must be unique among hon. Members in having taken part in illegal fishing activities—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Tell us more.
Dr. Godman: —off the Norwegian and Icelandic coast, albeit in an unwilling fashion. That was on a Hull trawler. In Aberdeen the behaviour is rather better than that.
The Minister emphasised the importance of the rule of law on this as on many other issues. In the last analysis, for a law to operate effectively it must have the consent and co-operation of those whose behaviour the law-makers seek to shape. As others have said, we must emphasise the importance of policing, and I speak as a fisherman who is now—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, not make a statement.
Dr. Godman: Does the Minister see the log book as a substitute for policing or as part of the total policing procedure?
Mr. Jopling: I regret that you called the hon. Gentleman to order at the point when you did, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that we were about to hear of various other exploits concerning illegal fishing, salmon poaching and so on.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see policing from several points of view. The key authority for policing is the state authority itself; each country polices its own waters. Effective policing will be made much easier if skippers are made to use the log books, which will begin to come into force by 1 November. In addition, we shall have the Commission's inspectorate overlooking national inspectorates to make sure that they are effective. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be the last to be able to admit to taking part in illegal fishing because we shall largely have stamped it out.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) if he was in his place for the statement. I thought that I saw him come in recently.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great concern in west Cumbria among fishermen about the unilateral suggestion by the Isle of Man Tynwald that they have the right to extend their fishing limits? Are they able to do that without the approval either of our Secretary of State or this House?
Mr. Jopling: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's constituency looks over the Isle of Man. This is a matter on which there is not an absolutely clear legal agreement; the Isle of Man is neither a member of the Community nor part of the United Kingdom. It is an issue into which we are currently looking.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I revert to the question raised by, among others, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about the klondikers. Surely the Minister is wrong in that while we have the right to supervise landings on to klondikers, we do not have the legal right to prevent them. I believe that there is in his
1030
Ministry at present a proposal to bring in legislation on that. We are seeking that legislation quickly because it is necessary. It could probably be enacted by way of statutory instrument, and if it were, we would give it our full support. May we have some prime ministerial resolution on that to get it done now?
How can the right hon. Gentleman defend this as being a superb agreement—he said that he was agreeing with his predecessor about that—because, he said, the CFP had settled in January the quotas, catches and so on, when in his statement today he said that the Council could not agree on the package of proposals for allowable catches, quotas and so on? In other words, a framework was created and it collapsed when the first attempt was made to fill it in and flesh it out. There is little satisfaction to be gained from such a policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman please drop his unctuous comments about the rule of law? Surely the crisis has been caused by the unauthorised fishing of about 70,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes by our Common Market partners, especially the Dutch and the Danes.
There will be a great deal of anxiety about the Minister's comment that an inspectorate of 39 was never envisaged. He explained that that number included, for example, secretaries and typists. He says, presumably, that on that ground an inspectorate of 13 is defensible. The statement referred to "some of the 13". How many of "some of the 13" will be secretaries? To what level has the inspectorate been reduced? How many inspectors will there really be? Will there be one, two, two and a half or three? Will the Minister accept that this is a lot of nonsense? Surely we need a full inspectorate if our waters and fishing stocks are to be protected, and that is what the Minister is supposed to be doing.
Mr. Jopling: As I have said, we shall not hesitate to use the powers available to us under the law to deal with illegal fishing wherever it happens and whoever engages in it.
As I also said in my statement, we have not been able to reach an agreement covering the whole package. As an agreement on North sea herring has been blocked by one state, it has not been possible to deal with all the other issues that are before the Council. If we can reach an agreement on North sea herring, which is much the most difficult issue, on 25–26 July, there will be cause for reasonable optimism that it will be possible to secure an agreement covering all the other issues to which I have referred, including quotas, total allowable catches, conservation measures and structural arrangements. I have every hope that we shall be able to do that.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the size of the inspectorate. The figure 13 refers to inspectors and not to secretaries.

Council of Fisheries Ministers

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at this day's sitting.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 12 July.]
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 8

  REDUCTION OF TAX
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: After the blow-out on Tuesday, when the higher rate bands were allowed to guzzle their way through £280 million, we are now picking over the crumbs that remain. The situation is slightly unusual, because normally the crumbs are left for household pets or, in their absence, the Door. The curious and distinctive feature of the Bill is that there is no room for the poor within it. The aspect that we find most offensive is that it contains not one provision that will relieve the tax burden of the poor or of the average earner. There are measures to reduce the tax burden on those who pay higher rates of tax. There are measures to reduce the tax burden of those who own small companies. There are measures to reduce the tax burden of those with the largest mortgages. There are even measures to reduce the tax burden of those who — presumably for reasons other than the weather—have chosen to take up domicile on the Channel Islands.
  Those we find picking over the crumbs in clause 8 are the wealthy. On Tuesday, we dealt with those who are rich in income and today we are faced with a provision to reduce the taxation of those who are rich in wealth. There is an overlap between the two categories. Indeed, they are the same people down to the last 1 per cent.
  Let us be clear in our minds whom we are talking about. The beneficiaries of this measure will be those who have a minimum estate of £60,000. They will be taxable only on the sum in excess of £60,000. For example, once the Bill is enacted, an estate valued at £80,000 will be liable to a CTT charge of only £6,000. We are aware from experience in our constituencies that an £80,000 estate is not normally achieved by the average income earner. Nor can such an estate be achieved by the curious statistical concept that we discussed on Tuesday and which was advanced by the occupant of the Treasury Bench—two males who are married, living together and each being in receipt of the average male wage. On the whole, estates of £80,000 can be achieved only by those who are comfortably off. I have in mind the sort of household that was able to use granny's inheritance to purchase shares in Cable and Wireless and which can now sell them off at 424p each.
  That sort of household has been liable to a tax charge over the past century. Until the Government came to power, there was a consensus that the inheritance of wealth was a proper subject for taxation. That consensus stretches back even beyond Lloyd George. It goes back some 300 years to the foundation of probate duty in 1694. I suspect
  1032
  that some Conservative Members would find themselves more comfortable and more at home if they were able to go back to those times.
  The consensus was founded on three propositions. First, it was recognised that households which managed to leave such large estates could afford to pay some tax. Secondly, it was recognised that at the point of transfer of the estate there was a mobile asset and, therefore, sufficient liquidity to enable the household to pay a tax charge. Thirdly, it was accepted that when viewed from the perspective of the recipient, the inheritance of a large sum was entirely arbitrary and due to no other virtue or act on his part than the good fortune of being born in the right household.
  That brings me to wider considerations of economic policy. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, who addressed himself to capital transfer tax in his last two Budget statements, was given to characterising CTT as a tax on enterprise or, as he said in March, as a tax "penalising personal endeavour". On the whole, the United Kingdom is not full of elderly wealthy couples who are scouring the country in search of individuals who show enterprise and endeavour and who will be suitable recipients of their fortunes.
  The reality is that there is a low correlation between enterprise and wealth. I am reluctant to disturb the prejudices of Conservative Members with the facts, but the unfortunate truth from their perspective is that research demonstrates repeatedly that the most common reason for people dying wealthy is that they were born wealthy. The most recent study took place in 1979 and was conducted by Harbury and Hitchins. It was discovered that two thirds of those leaving large estates had inherited large estates. It is worth noting that, of the remainder, one in 12 left a large estate on death because he or she had married well. I suppose that that might be described as enterprise of a kind.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Does the hon. Gentleman discount altogether the fact that some people wish to acquire wealth and assets so that they can pass them on to their families, so that after their lifetime their families will benefit from what they did during their lifetime? Does he discount that altogether? Does he think that there is something wrong with that? Does he think that there is something wrong with the family? Does he think it wrong that a family should give people the initiative to be enterprising and therefore to create the wealth that will attract taxation and enable the welfare services to be run in this country?
  Mr. Cook: That was an interesting interruption. Conservative Members become hot under the collar when we discuss these matters in a rational manner, which is exceedingly revealing. I shall repeat what I was saying before the hon. Gentleman intervened, because it appears that he has not grasped my argument. Perhaps I should have anticipated that it would be necessary to repeat the argument twice before the hon. Gentleman would be able to grasp it. I was saying that two thirds of those who die and leave estates of the sort that we are discussing are able to leave such estates because they in turn inherited like estates at birth.
  Very few families are capable of scraping together, saving and putting aside through thrift and hard work £80,000 out of anything approaching a normal or average

  1033
  income. The vast majority—not just 90 per cent., but 95, 96 or 97 per cent.—of all households that manage to find some form of wealth to leave to their children, which is a perfectly proper activity and a laudable incentive, are in no way touched by the effect of capital transfer tax. What we are considering in the clause is to what extent we diminish the tax on those who leave large sums. We are talking about the wealthy section of the community and about those who are wealthy because primarily they were born wealthy or, as in the minority, because they married wealthy people.
  Given that the most common cause of being wealthy is being born wealthy, whatever the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) may say about the disincentive effect of taxation on the accumulation of wealth, there is precious little evidence that the taxation of wealth has as yet discouraged anyone from seeking to inherit it. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues might want to ponder whether it is economically desirable that the primary source of wealth should be the accident of birth or the good fortune of marriage. The reason why I urge the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to ponder upon that is that, although parents can arrange for their children to inherit their wealth, they cannot arrange for their sons to inherit the ability to put that wealth to good use for themselves and society.
  There is, therefore, no reason why we should regard CTT as an economic handicap. On the contrary, we could argue that there is a robust case that so far as CTT might succeed in breaking up the concentration of wealth, it is economically progressive. I shall quote Keynes. I hope that the Minister of State will forgive me if I refer to someone whom I know Conservative Members regard as a dissident author who should be reduced to samizdat copies only. Keynes said:
  "The hereditary principle in the transmission of wealth and the control of business is the reason why the leadership of the capitalist cause is weak and stupid."
  If that was true 30 years ago, how much more true it is as we look at the Conservative Benches. Keynes stated further:
  "It is too much dominated by third generation men."
  Therefore, we might argue that it would be economically progressive to encourage the dissemination rather than the concentration of wealth. Let me recap. We have established that there is a consensus that inheritance of wealth is a proper subject for tax. We have also established that in so far as we can trace an economic effect from that taxation, it is benign rather than malign.
  I shall refer to the recent history of the tax. There has been a steady decline in revenue from taxation on the inheritance of wealth over the past century. In 1914, estate duty produced 16 per cent. of all Government revenue —a substantial proportion. By 1945 that proportion had shrunk to 9 per cent. By 1975 that proportion had shrunk further to 4 per cent. In 1975, as the Committee will be aware, CTT was introduced. Since its introduction, the revenue from taxes on inheritance has barely increased in cash terms, and in real terms it has more than halved, whether one measures the real sum as an absolute figure or as a proportion of the revenue of the Treasury. I say to Conservative Members and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that those who believe that taxation on capital and inheritance is economically regressive might wish to
  1034
  ponder the fact that the period in which revenue on the taxation on inheritance was lightest was also the period of the most disastrous economic performance in Britain.
  4.45 pm
  What is impressive about the reduction in the burden of CTT is that there has been no parallel increase in the other capital taxes, which have gone through a similar reduction. The revenue from capital gains tax and investment income surcharge has declined under the present Government. It has been calculated—the figures are available in a Treasury answer—that during the four years of the Government's previous term of office revenue from CTT, CGT and investment income surcharge together declined by £600 million compared with the level that they inherited in 1979.
  It is striking that at the same time as we witnessed a reduction in revenue from the tax on capital, we witnessed a sharp increase in the tax on income. In the decade since the introduction of CTT, taxes on income have gone up fourfold in cash terms. It is exceedingly strange that given the choice between putting the burden on capital or on income, the Government, strikingly, have chosen to place the greatest burden of all on income. It is a choice that would have convinced Marx of the priorities of the capitalist establishment.
  Before the Minister proceeds to pounce on the fact that the Labour Government failed to increase revenue from CTT, let me openly admit that we are disappointed at the low revenue from CTT. There is no doubt that had we had the responsibility of office when it became clear that CTT would not produce the revenue that was expected or desired, we would have sought to remedy the situation by making sure that changes were made to increase the yield and return it to approximately the previous yield from estate duty. The charge that must be laid against Conservative Members is that having been in office when the information became available that the tax was failing to raise the expected revenue, far from taking action to remedy the problem, they set about wilfully dismantling the revenue that continued to come in from CTT.
  It is appropriate that we should debate the clause immediately after the return of the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury team. When he was in his previous incarnation as Minister of State, Treasury, he, more than anybody else, set about the demolition of CTT with a will. In 1980 he doubled the threshold for CTT and thus removed from the tax two thirds of those who were eligible for it before. Before departing from the Treasury in 1982, he again took up his demolition sledgehammer and struck out the cumulative principle from CTT. That was an interesting choice. In removing the cumulative principle, he effectively reduced CTT to a tax—[Interruption.] I am pleased that the Minister has now joined us. When he destroyed the cumulative principle in the 1982 Budget, he effectively converted CTT back to estate duty. As The Times observed after the 1982 Budget:
  "For many people the tax on their estates will be almost wholly avoidable if they start planning early enough."
  What is striking and significant about the avoidability of CTT now is that that was the clear and distinctive feature of estate duty and the reason why the Labour Government sought to reform estate duty by introducing CTT that applied the tax over all transfers during lifetime as well as at death.
  Conservative Members never liked that change. When CTT was introduced in 1975, Conservative Members in

  1035
  the Committee railed against the change in positively histrionic terms. Mr. Stephen Hastings, who regrettably is no longer with us, reminded the Committee in 1975 that a tax on capital provoked the fall of Rome and the invasion by the Vandals. There is no sign that CTT has been a similar threat to the British constitution and the fabric of life in Britain. The present Financial Secretary also took part in that debate. He said that he had never liked estate duty, which was being replaced by CTT, but that the advantage of estate duty was that one did not actually have to pay it.
  When we debated this provision in April I asked the Financial Secretary whether he was satisfied with the present form of CTT. To my great delight, he assured me that the Treasury had reduced CTT to a suitable form. I assume from that that he now regards it as being, like estate duty, in a form in which it can be avoided, but there is one key difference between estate duty and the Government's CTT regime. The thresholds that the Treasury operate for CTT are much higher than those which operated for estate duty, with which it is now almost identical. In other words, the burden of CTT is now less onerous than the estate duty to which it is so similar.
  The Committee must judge the clause against that background. If the clause goes throught intact, it will concede a £40 million to £50 million reduction in the CTT charge in a full year. Since the Goverment came to power in 1979 they have reduced the burden of CTT by £190 million. That sum must be set against this year's expected revenue of a mere £540 million. In other words, the various ways in which the Treasury has tinkered and struck at CTT and sought to chip away at its effectiveness have reduced its revenue by no less than one quarter.
  Cedric Sandford, the expert on this subject, writing in the Financial Times, which at that time was still being published, said:
  "In this Budget Sir Geoffrey Howe continues the process, as in all his previous Budgets, of drawing the teeth of CTT. He has been an effective dentist."
  The dentistry being practised by the Chancellor is to index the thresholds for CTT by more than the rate of inflation. In the Budget speech in March this year the then Chancellor said:
  "On capital transfer tax, I propose to increase the threshold and rate bands broadly in line with indexation." — [Official Report, 15 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 152.]
  The Financial Secretary admitted in April that the indexation is 2 per cent. higher than the rate of inflation —that is, 2 per cent. higher than is strictly required by indexation. That is a generous margin. It happens to be identical with the percentage by which the same Government are fiddling the pension to ensure that pensioners do not get the full indexation. I am sure that many pensioner households would cheerfully settle for a pension broadly indexed in the same way as CTT if it meant that they would receive 2 per cent. more rather than 2 per cent. less.
  There is no possible justification for this generosity —this expensive sum of loose change flung on top of the general indexation for the wealthy. There is no justification in terms of fiscal prudence, economic progress or social justice. There is only one possible explanation.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Greed.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is characteristically more blunt than I. In a spirit of charity and seeking to understand
  1036
  the Government's motivation, I suggest that the explanation is the congenital affection of the Conservatives for the very wealthy. I remind my hon. Friends that affection is a positive human attribute and its rare flowering under the present Administration is welcome, however exclusive the corner in which we find it.
  When we gaze upon the evidence of the Government's affection as measured by the additional 2 per cent. to the very wealthy, however, we cannot forget—nor can we forgive—that the same Government have proved mean and vindictive to the unemployed, whose benefit has been cut by 2 per cent. this year and who are threatened with further cuts. Even as we have debated the Bill, the Government have again proved mean and vindictive in the cuts that they have imposed on the Health Service. It is against that background that we must measure the £40 million that the clause will give to the wealthiest members of our society.
  For that reason, the Opposition will take extra pleasure in voting against the repugnant double standards that the clause represents.
  Mr. Richard WainwrightIt is a commonplace that philistines can often get away with wrecking or dismantling a structure if the structure was originally so badly designed and constructed that few would rally to its defence. That is the fundamental mischief of capital transfer tax. Although its objects are wholly laudable it is badly constructed, as we made clear at the time, especially as it falls on the donor and not on the recipient. I hope that Treasury Ministers will not take advantage of that gift to them in dealing with this clause.
  The Red Book informs us that the change in the threshold will cost approximately £50 million to the Revenue in a full year. Therefore, there is an immediate problem of priorities. It is up to Treasury Ministers to try to convince the House that this is a proper priority. It is difficult to see how they can do so in two respects. First, what evidence can they produce that CTT now bites so hard or so unfairly that £50 million is well spent on restoring some equity? I do not believe for a moment that CTT in its present emasculated form bites unfairly on a substantial number of taxpayers, but I hope that we shall hear from Treasury Ministers if that is their view.
  Secondly, it is of the utmost importance that Ministers explain why they are continuing to give priority to the loss of £50 million to the Revenue in a full year when the Chancellor only last week openly confessed that the expenditure side of the March Budget had come seriously unstuck. That clearly creates a new situation in which Ministers must try to convince the Committee that this is still a justifiable priority. I think that they will be hard put to do so after the cuts that were announced last week which, as we all know, were only the first instalment. It is beyond my imagination how Treasury Ministers can justify going ahead with the proposal to provide the comfortably off with an additional £50 million relief.
  Those two tasks are firmly laid on Ministers. I hope that they will face them before we reach a decision on this.
  Mr. Marlow: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a speech of Victorian proportions with Victorian vindictiveness about the well off and the people who have succeeded in society. As the Opposition make great play of the Prime Minister's

  1037
  referring to Victorian values, they would do better not to show Victorian spite in the way in which they approach these matters.
  The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the amount of money that is to be liable to capital transfer tax as if it were riches beyond the wildest imagination. The limit that we are discussing is rather less than the value of Arthur Scargill's house. The hon. Gentleman talked of giving away. The Opposition always make that mistake. Conservative Members realise that the money belongs to the people and that what is raised in revenue, the Government are taking from the people. The people are not giving that money. If the Government do not take the money they are not giving money away, they are just not forcing people to give it to the Government.
  The hon. Member for Livingston said that the money could be spent in other ways and on more worthy programmes. The Government proposed their programme in the Budget, saying what they would spend and what they would take. The Conservatives put that forward in the election campaign and made a commitment to the British people that that was how we would proceed. That is how we should proceed for one good reason. There are two alternatives in the circumstances in which the Government found themselves. They could either contain public expenditure within the limits that they committed themselves to or they could raise taxation.
  There is pressure in Government Departments, pressure from the work force in Government Departments and the pressure of programmes continually to spend more money. If the Government gave in and said, "Every time there is a problem in the public service we shall increase taxation," what would be the lesson? The lesson would be, "Spend, spend, spend, the Government will pay the bills." It is up to the public sector, public authorities and Departments to sort themselves out and live within the means that the Government and the people have given them. If those Departments and authorities were to get the message, "If you spend the money the Government will raise it," where would we go from there? Every time they spend more and the Government raise more, more burdens are put on our people and our industry. If we do that, the golden goose that raises the money that we need will be shot, killed, roasted and destroyed.
  5 pm
  As I said to the hon. Member for Livingston in an intervention, we need to provide the services for those who dearly require them, but if we put more burdens on our people there will be no money, wealth or welfare services. That is the direction in which the hon. Member for Livingston pointed the country in his speech. We must not go that way. We must stick within our budgetary limits and carry out the commitment and the promise that we made. On this side of the Committee, when we make promises we believe in keeping them.
  I seldom find myself agreeing with the Liberal party, but the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that it would be far better if the tax were on the recipient rather than the giver. We should seriously consider moving from a capital transfer tax of this type to an inheritance tax. That would be far better from the point of view of distribution of wealth. It would be far better for those who think that it is wrong that a few people should
  1038
  receive great riches. It is far better that riches, which should be provided and which people should wish to create in their lifetime, were distributed among more people. That would be of far greater benefit to society. It would also be far more fair. I beseech the Government to consider moving in that direction.
  Mr. David Winnick: There should be much anger at what the Government are doing. This is by no means an obscure matter. We know that £50 million is involved, but it is the principle that should cause the greatest alarm.
  Once again, a Tory Government are taking steps, as soon as possible after a general election victory, to give benefits to the rich. There can hardly be any doubt that, shortly before the recess or immediately after our return, we shall hear of more public expenditure cuts that will affect our constituents, especially those who live on the smallest incomes. No doubt there will also be cuts in public services. We are now debating giving more relief to people who need it least. The increase is utterly unjustified. It is intended once again to reduce the burden of tax liability on the richest people. There is not much doubt that the Conservative party has never favoured any form of capital transfer tax. It is almost a matter of principle for Tories that a small number of people should gather a vast concentration of private wealth.
  One of the fictions that has grown up is that Britain has changed considerably with regard to private wealth. We are told that we are a more equal society, that we are nearly all middle class, that the class divisions of the turn of the century and before have been substantially eroded. That is far from the truth. The figures give a quite different picture. One quarter of all personal wealth is still owned by a mere 1 per cent. of the adult population. That is in the 1980s. Almost one third of all personal wealth is owned by 2 per cent. of the adult population and the top 10 per cent. own almost 60 per cent. of private wealth. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) might be interested to know that that information does not come from a Left-wing publication. I am quoting the Inland Revenue's statistics for last year. That is one side of the picture, which destroys the myth that there is no longer a rich minority. Unfortunately there has been little move towards equality, even under Labour Governments. I regret that the previous Labour Government did not do more. At least Labour Governments have not helped the wealthy as the present Government are.
  The Low Pay Unit has just issued a report saying that more than 1 million children are in poverty or near-poverty because of their parents' low wages. It also says that 11–5 million people in nearly 7 million families earn no more than 40 per cent. above the level of supplementary benefit. Thus we have two Britains. The one is a small rich minority that carries on as before. It is being considerably helped by the Government. At the other end of the social scale are the millions who live in poverty or near-poverty. That is a disgrace.
  If we are to give priority to a group of people and there is money to be given away, surely justice demands that we give it to those who need it most—the poor, the near-poor and the children who live in such households. What possible justification can there be for giving priority to the rich minority? Ministers cannot possibly justify giving them more assistance from the public revenue. That is why I started by saying that there should be the utmost anger

  1039
  at what the Government are doing. The Prime Minister and her colleagues talk of what they call, "the Left" being concerned with class struggle and class war. It is the Government who are conducting class warfare.
  At Question Time today, the Prime Minister again refused to give any pledge about unemployment benefit being increased in line with prices after this year. All the signs are that the unemployed and those who receive short-term supplementary benefits will discover that they get no increase in line with prices next year and, possibly, thereafter. The children in such households will suffer. I wonder what sort of Government supporters can go through the Division Lobby tonight, or on any other occasion, to use their votes to give more to the rich minority and to deprive the millions who continue to live in poverty or near-poverty. That is why we shall constantly remind the Government of what they have done, especially when they refuse to update short-term supplementary and unemployment benefits next year. How many Conservative Members will benefit as a result of this clause? We shall use every occasion inside and outside Parliament to show how the Government are using their majority to aid their rich friends. That is our indictment, our accusation, against the Government.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The taxation of wealth is a problem about which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee become muddled. Conservative Members regard such taxation as an infringement of ancestral rights, and when it is questioned we hear from the Macmillans, Sainsburys, Aitkens and Ancrams of this country. Those hon. Members are loaded on to Select Committees discussing wealth tax, and the great barrage of claims for relief for the wealthiest families in the land is brought into play.
  Opposition Members show an extraordinary naivety in attacking the arguments of the Conservative party. The problems of the taxation of wealth, and the avoidance of that taxation, are complicated and tangled. None of our constituents write to us about those problems, and we have no reason to consider them for any constituency interest. We are hopelessly naive and ill-informed, until something happens, such as the Labour Government in 1974 setting up a Select Committee to consider a wealth tax. I hope that a future Labour Government will revive the principle of the taxation of wealth.
  I shall demonstrate the basis on which we propose a change in the structure of tax. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) made an interesting speech, but he is wrong to believe that the basis of change can be a tax on accessions. That tries to tax wealth only when it moves, which is the easiest method of taxation to avoid. The more elaborate the legislation to prevent avoidance, the greater the gains and the more complicated and difficult the system becomes. Change can be brought about only by taxing wealth where it rests. That was the principle of the wealth tax proposed in the 1970s, which went wrong because it was discussed only in terms of horizontal equity —equity between the holders of great wealth and those who enjoy high incomes. If it was unfair to tax people with high incomes when people with great wealth got away with paying little tax, there was a prima facie case for taxing the wealth. Conservative Members were prepared to consider a reconstruction of capital taxation on that basis. However, if one regards the purpose of taxing wealth not as horizontal equity but as vertical equity between those
  1040
  who have and those who have not, whether it be income or wealth, different sets of principles and approach are needed.
  It is not enough to consider what will happen to the rates of tax either on wealth or on the movement of wealth. We must consider what we wish to do with the assets that that wealth represents, such as stately homes, private companies or forests. If we set up a system for the taxation of wealth that has exemptions for farmland or forestry, the value of those assets will be hopelessly inflated because they will be tax avoidance measures. Those who wish to make an honest living from farming or foresty would be unable to do so because ownership of such things would become a tax avoidance racket. We must ask on what basis we wish the private or public ownership of assets to be taxed. The Opposition believe in principle, although they have not had the courage to put it into practice, that Britain's assets — whether they be production assets, land, stately homes or our national heritage—should be for public enjoyment and benefit. That does not mean that it would be sensible for a Labour Government to eliminate the private ownership of wealth, but we should be realistic about the levels of wealth that it is reasonable to expect people to hold. It is reasonable not to knock the small garage owner or the owner of the sweetie shop. However, if we allow the man who has built up a business worth £50 million to believe that he has a God-given right to keep that money and not to share it with those who helped him to build up the business, that is plainly wrong.
  5.15 pm
  After considering the use of the assets and the extent of the redistribution that we seek, we must ensure that we leave adequate provision to encourage the savings needed to finance the investment required in society and productive industry. That is not a problem, because in recent years the savings ratio has been high and is increasing. The vehicle by which it has increased has been the growth of pension schemes and investment trusts, so we now have a high level of personal savings that is adequate to fund the necessary investment.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will be courageous in tackling the taxation of wealth, be prepared to have a go fundamentally and not to listen to the hogwash that we hear from the Conservative party about the economic arguments, and get on with the social and practical economic adjustments that must be made.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My speech will be unashamedly emotional because I am angry about what the Government are doing in this clause. I had no intention of speaking in the debate until I heard the Prime Minister at Question Time today. In a disgraceful spectacle, which every British voter should have seen, she showed that she had no sensitivity about unemployment and that she does not understand that some British people are doing without. Her Government are spending this £50 million, which the people need to secure decent living standards.
  Today the Prime Minister said that no Government had been able to define levels of poverty, but I must tell her and the members of her Cabinet that if they want to see poverty they should come to our constituencies, to our housing estates, where people live in deplorable and miserable conditions. It is about time that they left Whitehall and the House of Commons — many Conservative Back-Benchers could go with them —and went into the real outside world.

  1041
  During the past week, £450 million has been given back to the 3 per cent. in society who are most wealthy. That is a disgrace. This is the last but one measure in the Bill that once again legislates for that transfer back to the people who have in this society, to be paid for by the people who have not. The Government disgrace the Dispatch Box, Parliament and all the British people by bringing forward such legislation when they know that they have no mandate from the British people to give back that money in the way that they have.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that just before the election a report on the population was prepared by the social working party in Strathclyde? It showed that one in five of the population of Strathclyde, which is the largest region in Scotland, and probably the largest region in the United Kingdom, lives in abject poverty, and that that figure was an increase of 35 per cent. since the Tories came into office in 1979. The Glasgow people feel as resentful about this as does my hon. Friend. I can understand his anger and frustration because there does not seem to be any hope of the Government doing anything to ease the poverty that prevails in many parts of the world.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In every constituency of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and in yours Mr. Walker, there is great poverty, yet the Government believe that they have a mandate to hand back £400 million to the 3 per cent. income and wealth holders in our society.
  Last week I raised a point of order asking that the Government, in the form of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be given the right to come to the Dispatch Box to withdraw this Bill, which favours those who have and takes away from those who have not. For seven days I have waited for them to come forward. Even today, when the Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box, there were calls from my hon. Friends for the withdrawal of the Bill. The Minister and his friends know that it is immoral and offends the dignity and peace of mind of respectable citizens. Tonight, once again, I ask the Government to withdraw the Bill. Our people who have nothing cannot afford to pay for it. There is an obligation on decent Government to make sure that they are not required to pay it.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) implied that he and his hon. Friends would be voting against the clause, but ranged somewhat wide of the detailed content of the clause itself. I make no complaint. He did so on the evening of 25 April when he made a similar speech on clause 63 of the previous Bill. He would be the first to acknowledge that much of what he said today, particularly in some of his more telling phrases, was what he said in his speech in April.
  The clause is relatively modest and has attracted more than its fair share of the invective of envy and the old phrases of the class war from some Labour Members. It has also led to thoughtful comments by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), at least in the earlier part of his speech, and to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) challenging the basis of the capital transfer tax and saying again what he has said on previous occasions—that his preference lies towards an
  1042
  inheritance tax. He was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who commended that approach.
  Perhaps it would be best if I were briefly to remind the Committee of the background of the clause. Last year's Finance Bill recast the capital transfer tax scales both for lifetime transfers and those on death. It provided that, unless Parliament otherwise determined, those scales should for the future be automatically increased in line with changes in the retail price index over the year ending the previous December. In other words, the Finance Act 1982 legislated for an automatic increase of the level and scales of this tax.
  The Finance Bill 1983, introduced earlier this year, proposed in clause 53 rate bands similar to those for 1982 after indexation by reference to the change of the price levels over the year ended last December. The amounts for most bands were somewhat more than the rounding to the nearest £1,000 stipulated by section 91 of the Finance Act 1982. The extra rounding was mainly intended to provide a more sensible gradation.
  The Opposition saw fit to oppose the modest extra rounding that was proposed and clause 63 was therefore dropped from the pre-election Finance Act. In introducing those provisions into this Finance Bill, we are carrying through, as has been acknowledged, our statements, before and during the election, that we would re-enact those portions of the earlier Finance Bill dropped because of the election and because of the insistence of the Opposition that they be dropped in order that the Act should go through.
  Clause 8 reintroduces those provisions. It will take effect from the same day as clause 63 in the Act earlier this year, 15 March 1983. If the clause were not enacted, the indexation would take effect from 1 April. Thus, there is a fortnight's difference. When I come to refer to the cost, that will be taken into account in the overall assessments and estimates that I can give of the cost involved in this clause.
  The capital taxes office has not finally settled tax liability on transfers made on or after 15 March and therefore there is no administrative difficulty. As to the effect of the changes, it is recognised throughout the Committee that the change from the old scales—those produced by indexation—to the new scales, set out in an appendix that has also been made available to Members, will leave no estate worse off.
  The effect of the clause is broadly to maintain the burden of capital transfer tax at the same level in real terms as last year. I acknowledge that the rounding out in the increase in thresholds is a little more—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not raise the unemployment benefit in the same way?
  Mr. Hayhoe: I am dealing with the clauses before the Committee. Except for estates up to about £80,000, the burden of the capital transfer tax rates scale remains heavier, despite this measure, than—
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Hayhoe: I understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, but let me finish the point I am making. Except for estates up to about £80,000, the burden of capital transfer rates scale remains heavier after the enactment of this clause than when the tax was introduced by the Labour

  1043
  Government. The hon. Members for Livingston and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) acknowledged that by their embarrassment in recognising that, when the party that they supported was in power, it was not pursuing the policies that those hon. Members would have wished. It is important to remember that.
  Much of the passion and criticism of this clause has concentrated on the costs that are involved, and has been based on a gross overestimate of those costs. I believe that there has been a misunderstanding of the true position, because I do not for a moment think that the figures were quoted in the knowledge that they were wrong. The cost of the proposals in the clause this year amount not to £50 million, but to £5 million. Indexation is the result of the Finance Act 1982, but the cost of this measure will increase those costs over and above indexation by £5 million this year, £10 million next year, and £15 million for a full year.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: Surely the Minister does not deny that when we debated the matter before the general election the then Financial Secretary gave figures for the total cost of these changes, including indexation, of £40 million this year, £50 million next year, and £60 million in subsequent years.
  Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman's intervention leads me to believe that perhaps some Opposition Members knew the truth about the cost and thus might—I hope inadvertently — have misled the Committee. We are debating clause 8. We are not debating the provision that was enacted in last year's Finance Act. The choice before the Committee in this debate is to accept the scales laid down in clause 8 or—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a play on words.
  Mr. Hayhoe: It is not a play on words. If the clause is defeated, the effect would not be a saving of £50 million of tax revenue; it would be a saving of £5 million.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Then give us a de-indexation clause.
  Mr. Cook: The Minister of State was unable to be here on Tuesday, but had he been here at the start of our proceedings he would have heard me raise a point of order of some substance and length, in which I referred to the Opposition's frustration in tabling amendments to the Finance Bill. I am pleased to see that the Economic Secretary recollects that. If it will assist the Minister of State, let me tell him that we would willingly and cheerfully have tabled an amendment to suspend indexation for this year. However, any such amendment would he nugatory, because it would have been ruled incompetent on the basis that it would have raised an additional tax charge.
  We object to the £50 million for this year, for which the Government must take responsibility. In this clause, the Government relieve themselves of indexation provisions in subsection (1) so that they may go beyond them in subsection (2). Elemental forces have not driven them to give away those millions in indexation. They could have chosen to stop at subsection (1), in which case the £50 million would not have been given away.
  Mr. Hayhoe: One could be hypothetical and talk about "might have beens". However, we are in Committee,
  1044
  taking decisions on a Bill. Our choice is either to accept this clause, which I hope the Committee will do, or to reject it. If the clause is rejected, the cost will be £5 million, not £50 million. However Opposition Members seek to camouflage the true position, it remains as I have stated.
  I want to make a further comment, because of what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said about the deep divide that is apparent in the Committee. The Opposition talk about the Government giving away, when in fact we are taking less. We are talking about the amount of tax that will be charged. The division between us—and I acknowledge that it is a deep and important division — arises because the Opposition want to tax more, and, indeed, not just on capital taxes. The record of Labour Governments is to increase taxation whereas, broadly speaking, Conservative Governments decrease taxation.
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Hayhoe: Of course, we can argue about some of the details, but it is clear that Labour Members believe that Governments give away when they reduce taxation, whereas Conservative Members believe that we take less. That demonstrates the great divide between us. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee will approve the clause.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I want to say a few words to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is not in the Chamber at present. I shall give him some time to return here, because I am quite sure that having intervened in the debate, he does not want to miss the wind-up speeches. I therefore await his return.
  Meanwhile, I shall comment on what the Minister has just said. I do not know which Conservative Government he has in mind, but it is certainly not true that the last Conservative Government reduced the burden of taxation. Time after time in the House we have debated the fact that. without any shadow of doubt, the last Conservative Government increased the burden of taxation on income. Tonight we are debating the fact that, side by side with that increased burden on income, there was a reduction in the tax charge on capital, and the combination of a reduction in the tax on capital and an increase in tax on income has to be the result of the clear, deliberate priorities of this Government.
  I say to the Minister, with a heavy heart, that it is not true that Labour Governments always increase taxation, particularly capital taxation. I remind the Minister of the figures that were given by the Financial Secretary at the close of our debate at midnight on 25 April. He said that in 1970–71 the revenue from estate duty was £1,645 million, that in 1975 it was £1,026 million, and that by 1979 the revenue from CTT had fallen to £638 million. This year it will be £540 million. I do not make a partisan point — [Interruption.] I regret that Conservative Members are incapable of seeing the case for looking at the trend, and are blinded by the partisan points that they constantly wish to score.
  Over that 15-year period there has been a steady reduction in revenue from tax on capital. During that time the revenue has fallen from £1,600 million in 1970 to £540 million this year, in cash terms. In other words, the burden of tax on capital has fallen within 15 years to one third of its former level. That is the extent to which capital and

  1045
  wealth are now failing to meet their full responsibility to contribute to the legitimate necessities of the state to maintain public expenditure. It has happened at the very same time—again I do not make a partisan point—when the tax on income has increased throughout that period, under all three Administrations that were in power.
  To be candid, I find it offensive, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and, I suspect, although I did not detect it in the academic dissertation that he made to the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), that at the very time that tax on income is rising, tax on capital should be falling.
  Mr. Winnick: The Minister accused Labour Members of always wanting to increase taxes. Is it not appropriate to remind the Minister that it was his Government who subjected the unemployed to double taxation, which will continue until November? That is the result of unemployment benefit being taxed since last year and the fact that the 5 per cent. abatement has not been restored and will not be restored until the end of the year. Surely Conservative Members are the last people to give us lectures about taxation.
  Mr. Cook: I recall the Minister vigorously refusing in our debates in 1982 to repay the 5 per cent. abatement. As we said time and again then, if a category of society other than the unemployed were made subject to the double jeopardy of double taxation, Conservative Members would rise in revolt and call upon their Government to remedy the iniquity of it. My hon. Friend anticipates me because the parallel to the treatment of the wealthy that we see in this clause is the treatment of the poor.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend commented on the reducing tax taken under successive Governments, including Labour Governments. Surely he will ensure that the record is correct. Under the change from death duties to capital transfer tax, the new rules concerning spouses were the greatest contributor to tax reduction and it was not our intention to reduce the liability that fell on the better-off in society.
  Mr. Cook: I agree entirely. The previous Labour Government had no intention to reduce the yield from taxation on capital. Conservative Members must take responsibility for pressing for the many concessions from a Government who had no majority with which to resist them, and which resulted in a decline in the yield.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman expresses concern for the unemployed but does he not recognise that if we destroy capital we destroy the seed corn from which the jobs of the future will grow?
  Mr. Cook: There might have been some force in that point were it not that the decline in the revenue from tax on capital also coincides with a historic period in which there has been a positive stampede from investment in industry by the personal sector and the fact that the hole in investment created by that is being filled by the institutions, which has nothing to do with the tax that we are discussing in the clause.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North has not returned to the Chamber, which I regret since he chose to make an intervention. In his absence I regret that I shall
  1046
  have to say some unkind things about him. I must warn him that he should stop saying nasty things about Victorian values if he wants to graduate from the Back Bench to the Treasury Bench. His observations today that it is the Opposition that effulge Victorian values will not go down well with the Prime Minister.
  It is not credible to argue that if we maintain indexation rather than give indexation plus 2 per cent. to those who hold estates of £60,000 or more we shall destroy the incentive to work. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned about the incentive to work, the people he should be expressing concern and anxiety about are those struggling on lower than average earnings who find that they are subject to a marginal tax on every pound earned of 39 per cent. to 30 per cent. standard and 9 per cent. national insurance contributions. If they have a means-tested benefit they then have a marginal tax rate in excess of that 39 per cent. Those are the people who are having to pay for the concessions that we are giving to the very rich in this clause and those are the people who are subject to a disincentive to work.
  5.45 pm
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North has at long last returned to the Committee. If he were concerned about disincentives, those are the people about whom he should be addressing the Committee with passion. Since it was not those, one is driven to the conclusion that all the persiflage about incentives are nothing other than a cover for the class prejudice of Conservative Members and the people to whom they wish to give tax relief.
  The Minister, in trying to exculpate himself from the £50 million, used weasel words in his reply. As a Minister who belongs to the Treasury, he must accept his responsibility for the clause that he has put before the Committee. That clause has the effect of conceding £50 million to the very rich. If it were the view that the Treasury could not afford that £50 million it was open to it to do the very thing that it did to income tax payers in 1981, and that is to suspend indexation for this year. If it could do that for the generality of income tax payers in 1981 in a way that put a particularly grievous burden on the low income tax payer, it could have done it for the very rich this year.
  Therefore, our conclusion must be that it is the Treasury's judgment that it can afford and find the £50 million to finance the concessions in clause 8. The Committee must ask how it is that it can find £50 million to finance those concessions. How is it that it can find £50 million—to use the Minister's own words—to take less from the very rich when it has admitted within the past week that it cannot afford to maintain the present level of unemployment benefit or to maintain the present expenditure of the National Health Service?
  Those are priorities that I find provide a revealing insight into the prejudices and values of Conservative Members. They are values that I completely reject and that every Labour Member will wish to reject. For that reason we shall vote against the clause.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 211; Noes 108.

  Division No. 22]

  [5.47 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Alexander, Richard

  Ashby, David

  1047

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Harris, David

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

  Hayward, Robert

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Heddle, John

  Baldry, Anthony

  Hickmet, Richard

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hirst, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Holt, Richard

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Howard, Michael

  Blackburn, John

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Body, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Jessel, Toby

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bright, Graham

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Brinton, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Key, Robert

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Budgen, Nick

  Knowles, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Latham, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Chope, Christopher

  Lester, Jim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lightbown, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Coombs, Simon

  Lord, Michael

  Cope, John

  Luce, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Cranborne, Viscount

  McCrindle, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Dorrell, Stephen

  MacGregor, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Dover, Denshore

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Dunn, Robert

  Major, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Malins, Humfrey

  Eggar, Tim

  Malone, Gerald

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Evennett, David

  Marlow, Antony

  Fallon, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Favell, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mather, Carol

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Maude, Francis

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Forman, Nigel

  Mellor, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Franks, Cecil

  Moate, Roger

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Moore, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Fry, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Gale, Roger

  Murphy, Christopher

  Galley, Roy

  Needham, Richard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Neubert, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Newton, Tony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Normanton, Tom

  Gorst, John

  Norris, Steven

  Gow, Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Greenway, Harry

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Gregory, Conal

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

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

  Parris, Matthew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Ground, Patrick

  Pawsey, James

  Grylls, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Price, Sir David

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  1048

  Raffan, Keith

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Tracey, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trippier, David

  Rossi, Hugh

  Viggers, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Walden, George

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Waller, Gary

  Ryder, Richard

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Speller, Tony

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stern, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. David Hunt.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Barron, Kevin

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bell, Stuart

  Loyden, Edward

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

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McKelvey, William

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  McNamara, Kevin

  Boyes, Roland

  Madden, Max

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Marek, Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Caborn, Richard

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Michie, William

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Cohen, Harry

  Molyneaux, James

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Nellist, David

  Cowans, Harry

  O'Brien, William

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Crowther, Stan

  Parry Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'ili)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

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

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

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Deakins, Eric

  Prescott, John

  Dixon, Donald

  Radice, Giles

  Dormand, Jack

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dubs, Alfred

  Robertson, George

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Rogers, Allan

  Eastham, Ken

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Freud, Clement

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Snape, Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Soley, Clive

  Gould, Bryan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Hardy, Peter

  Straw, Jack

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Tinn, James

  Haynes, Frank

  Wainwright, R.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Wallace, James

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Wareing, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Welsh, Michael

  1049

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. Austin Mitchell and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Hugh McCartney.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

  GIFTS TO CHARITIES
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: When capital transfer tax was originally introduced in the Finance Act 1975, gifts to charities of up to £100,000 were exempted from a charge to tax. In 1980 that was increased to £200,000, and to £250,000 in last year's Finance Act. Under clause 9 that facility for charities is greatly extended, because the limit is lifted altogether. We shall not divide the House on this issue, but there are two points that I wish briefly to raise.
  First, what loss of revenue is anticipated as a result of this change? Secondly, is the Treasury satisfied that with the lifting of the limit sufficient powers exist to cover what I would describe as "bogus charities"? I refer to trusts that have charitable status but which exist simply as fronts for tax avoidance schemes. The Minister will be aware that there was a theatrical company and trust that was not unknown to the Revenue for offering a facility for such schemes. Is the Treasury satisfied that with the lifting of the exemption, thus making greater the attractiveness of bogus charitable trusts, there are sufficient powers to ensure that they do not take advantage of the new provision?
  6 pm
  Mr. Timothy Yeo: I welcome the lifting of capital transfer tax on charities to bring them into line with the National Trust, but the change will be of primary benefit to the larger charities. Out of 140,000 charities, only 70 last year had an income from legacies in excess of £250,000. The concession will, therefore, be of interest only to the larger charities. Many medium-sized charities have no concession. That underlines the need for VAT relief for all charities. In the past the Treasury has argued against granting VAT relief on the ground that it would benefit only the larger charities. That is inconsistent with the decision to offer relief from CTT.
  I share the concern that some less desirable charities — not necessarily in the tax avoidance category, but whose objectives could be considered to be not entirely charitable—may be most likely to benefit from CTT relief. We should examine carefully the overall package of fiscal concessions for charities. The change is welcome, but it underlines the need for a further examination of the VAT issue.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad that the Opposition welcome the clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) has a long-standing interest in charities which is recognised throughout the House. I am not surprised that he put in a dig about VAT and charities in a discussion on a clause which has nothing to do with VAT. My hon. Friend is learning fast about how things are done. The
  1050
  reason that the Treasury is not able to help charities through the VAT route is wider than the one to which he referred. I am glad that he welcomes the clause.
  The cost of the clause this year is negligible. It will involve about £1 million in a full year. Comments have been made about the freedom from CTT being used as a tax avoidance route. That is more because of publicity than knowledge. Lifetime gifts are already exempt. All that the clause does is to extend that relief to gifts linked to the death of the donor. I do not believe that the extra risk—if there is an extra risk — of its being used for tax avoidance will cause difficulty. I am sure that it is a risk that we should take.
  If hon. Members have any information about the way in which the provision could be, or is being, used as a tax avoidance route, I hope that they will make it available. I am sure that the Inland Revenue will take action against any misuse of the provisions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

  RELIEF FOR BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
  Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
  The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
  Mr. Straw: These are probing amendments. The Government have never explained in detail why the relief should be increased from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. They have never given the cost of the change.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I am grateful to you, Mr. Dean, for calling me to make my maiden speech. If I rise with trepidation, it is in part because of the natural awe of the amateur historian participating for the first time in the proceedings of the Mother of Parliaments and partly because of the nervousness of a new boy who is conscious of the high standard set by those who have gone before him.
  As befits a lawyer, before embarking upon my maiden speech I inquired of senior colleagues about advice on timing. And as is usual when a lawyer takes advice, the advice was divided and contradictory. Some said that I should seize the first possible opportunity of catching Mr. Speaker's eye and relieve myself of the inhibitions of maidenhood. Others said that I should first sit and watch, learn and understand the ways of the House. The compromise that I have adopted was suggested to me. I was advised to wait until I had first been allocated a desk and a telephone so that no one could accuse me of acting precipitately and I would have first-hand experience of the ways of the House.
  Due to the ministrations of the Boundary Commission, for me this is a double maiden. Not only is this my first speech in the House, but it is the first occasion on which any hon. Member has spoken in the House on behalf of the Elmet constituency. As a name, Elmet has the advantages of brevity and mystery. The name has not been widely used since 617 AD. Indeed, a significant part of my election campaign entailed explaining to people who had for many years voted in Barkston Ash, Leeds, East and

  1051
  Normanton that they lived in a new constituency. It is an example of what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to as "moving the countryside around."
  One can imagine, therefore, how impressed I was with the erudition and store of learning in the House when on my first day here I explained to an hon. Member whom I had met for the first time that I was the Member for Elmet and he said, without prompting, "That's the old post-Roman British kingdom between the Wharf and the Aire which is now in west Yorkshire and which was conquered by Northumbria in the seventh century." There is little that I can add to that, save that the tradition of tough-mindedness, independence, self-resolution and self-help are still very evident in the people of Elmet and that they typify the right hon. and hon. Members who represented for many years its three component parts.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who represent neighbouring constituencies to the east and west, and to Mr. Albert Roberts who was a very popular and hard-working Member until his retirement at the general election after 32 years' service in the House. Their erstwhile constituents hold them all in the highest regard and I shall do my best to continue the high standards of service and dedication to constituents set by those right hon. and hon. Members.
  My task is particularly challenging because, while many hon. Members have spoken of the diversity of their constituencies, few can be quite so rich in diversity as the modern Elmet. It contains the thriving market town of Wetherby, with its famous racecourse, much beautiful countryside, fine villages and prime agricultural land. It contains Allerton Bywater at which is the area headquarters of the National Coal Board and which is at the centre of many close-knit mining communities. Around Boston Spa is the Thorp Arch trading estate, the national lending division of the British library and various penal establishments.
  Many of my constituents live in areas such as Garforth Kippax and Whinmoor and work in the many trades, industries and professions that make Leeds and west Yorkshire so famous around the world. And in the centre of my constituency is Barwick in Elmet, a beautiful village which boasts the biggest maypole in the world. Few issues to be discussed in the House will not affect the richly varied constituency that I am privileged to represent. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby said of Barkston Ash in his maiden speech in 1964, it is
  "a microcosm of the country as a whole."—[Official Report, 17 December 1964; Vol. 704, c. 638.]
  The same is true of Elmet, as I have taken over a significant proportion of my right hon. Friend's former constituency.
  There are few issues of greater long-term importance for the economic prosperity and the long-term employment prospects of my constituents and the country as a whole than the need to encourage investment in the creation, development and growth of small businesses not only in existing industries but in the new industries that will take us into the 21st century.
  I declare an interest in that I am a solicitor in a firm which has for many years represented a university, and I have been actively involved in trying to bring the technologies of the universities into industry. I know only too well the problems and obstacles which so often face us. The lesson that we learn from America's success in
  1052
  fields in which we have so often performed relatively badly is that we need to plan long-term. We must bring together the inventor, the entrepreneur, the manager and the financier, and we must keep them together for a long time because the fruits of success rarely come quickly.
  Over a long period the practical effect of our tax structure, including capital transfer tax, is that private investment in industry has been increasingly inhibited. Hence, the organic growth of our small businesses into medium-sized businesses has also become increasingly inhibited. That is at the heart of my objection to the amendment.
  The incentive which business has now is always to maximise short-term profits, to puff up the company and sell it off to realise a quick capital gain rather than to plan for the gradual development of the company, often over two generations or more, as so often happens in Europe and the United States. I have lost count of the number of times when clients come to me as a solicitor in practice with a depressingly familiar story. They have built up a successful private company, and they are faced with trying to decide where to go. Often they say, "It just isn't worth our while expanding, bringing in more money, taking greater risks, when we cannot have the commensurate benefit that goes with it. We cannot pass it on to our children without incurring the heavy cost of insurance to meet the capital transfer tax. Our private Investors similarly feel the effects of the capital transfer tax and want to grasp the profit while they can."
  The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the fact that in this country venture capital is often the prerogative of the institution. It is that fact, compared with the position in the United States where venture capital is often shared between the private investor and the institution, which lies at the heart of our relatively poor performance in this sector. The flexibility, the speed of response and the good working relationships of a well-managed, owner-run business are essential to the health of British industry and will become more so as the years go by. For as long as these businesses are under-capitalised, because death duties and other tax burdens strangle the supply of long-term income, capital and finance, we will see them diminish. We will find this problem—and this is one of my interests—as we try to involve small businesses in the new technologies that are coming out of our universities. If one thing is true of new technology more than other industries, it is that we have to think in the long term. The rewards will not come tomorrow. They must plan for a long-term fight to bring their product on to the market and to sell it profitably. Our attitude to the taxation of venture capital which has built up over the years is counter-productive to this.
  I have heard the arguments that were advanced earlier, but surely the right place to start is by asking, "Where do we want to go? What do we want to achieve?" If the answer is that we seek to create new industries and jobs, we must abandon preconceived ideas and old-fashioned commitments which are counter-productive to those aims. We must reach out to achieve our goals. If that means taking what some people may regard as unpalatable measures, so be it.
  I recognise fully and applaud the Government's great achievement over the past four years in introducing a large number of measures designed to help small businesses. It has been a start. I am sure that the Government will

  1053
  recognise, as I do, that much still remains to be done to bring private enterprise and capital into the small and medium business sector.
  In that context I should like to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) who, as national chairman of the Small Business Bureau, has done so much to carry the banner of small businesses into the political arena with such success. I am proud, as a member of the national board of the Small Business Bureau who has represented Yorkshire and Humberside, to have played a small part in that success. I am particularly delighted that so many members of the Small Business Bureau were elected to the House in the general election to reinforce my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey-North West in his task.
  The task before us now is to build upon the achievement of the past four years. In doing that, we shall have to face the fact squarely that capital transfer tax is an obstacle to the end that we seek. The additional relief contained in clause 10(1) will be gratefully received. It is a step in the right direction, but I urge that there should be a radical reappraisal of the basis of capital transfer tax as part of long-term strategic thinking at the earliest possible opportunity insofar as it impacts upon small and medium business and venture capital in such businesses. The revenue involved is relative small. The hon. Member for Livingston described it earlier as "crumbs". I call it seedcorn.
  Venture capital is the basis upon which our industrial development will depend. In response to the request for evidence to prove that our tax structure has discriminated against the provision of private venture capital in the past, I invite the Opposition to look in detail at the contrasting experience of the United States of America where money from private investors for high risk venture capital investments is readily forthcoming and where many jobs in many high technology industries have been created as a consequence.
  We sit upon a gold mine of inventive genius in our universities, of entrepreneurial flair and financial acumen. We must not allow our tax structure to prevent us from exploiting those resources to the fullest possible extent because, if we do, the Americans, the Japanese and the Germans will exploit to the full the opportunites that we miss just as they have done so often before.
  I quoted earlier from the maiden speech of my right hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Selby. I conclude by paraphrasing part of the maiden speech of the right hon. member for Leeds, East. He said that he knew that he had touched upon ground which might be considered controversial, but he assured the House that he had no intention whatever of being polemical or partisan.
  I hope that my contribution today will be received as a sincere effort to think the problem out. I thank the Committee for its forbearance and courtesy.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Hayhoe: It is a most agreeable task to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on his splendid maiden speech. He was able to speak from personal knowledge and experience of small businesses. He spoke with great clarity. He combined passion and humour and he was brief. Those qualities commend themselves as the essential elements of the best
  1054
  parliamentary speeches. Every hon. Member will wish to hear him speak again on these matters. His comments on the clause about capital transfer tax, especially for small businesses, will have been noted.
  I was especially interested in what my hon. Friend said about linking the research done in universities with the industrial applications. It is good that he is facilitating that in his part of the world. So often in Britain marvellous work has been done in our universities or research institutes, but the industrial application has been exploited in other parts of the world. His message on that issue will commend him to the Committee. I hope that we will find ways to facilitate that to which he has set his hand.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked about the cost of the measures. It is £2 million for the business side and £3 million for the agricultural side, giving a total of £5 million for a full year. The reasons for pursuing relief for industry were amply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet in his speech. I endorse what he said. The increase in agricultural relief will alter the present balance of relief between let and owner-occupied land and should provide further encouragement to owners to relet land when a tenancy falls, rather than take it in hand themselves.
  The propositions are warmly endorsed in all parts of the Committee. I hope that the Committee will support the clause and that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment.
  Mr. Straw: When I wrote amendments to clause 10 to provide a vehicle for discussion, I little thought that they would also become the vehicle for a maiden speech. Even less did I think that they would be the vehicle for such an eloquent and witty speech, which was also thoughtful and provocative. I congratulate the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). I regret that not more hon. Members were present to hear his speech.
  I thank the Minister for the information that he gave, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

  PAYMENT OF TAX BY INSTALMENTS
  Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 7, leave out subsection (1).
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 13, in page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
  Mr. Straw: Under clause 11 the facility for paying capital transfer tax by instalment is extended from eight years to 10 years. We have tabled the amendments to discover the reason for that change.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): I appreciate the tenor and the way in which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has requested further, legitimate information. It is important for the wider public.
  The purpose of amendment No. 12 is to annul the proposed increase in the capital transfer tax instalment period from eight to 10 years. The instalment facility recognises that taxpayers may find difficulty in paying in

  1055
  one sum the capital transfer tax attributable to certain types of property which are not readily marketable; or alternatively that meeting the liability would entail selling some of the property concerned, possibly to the detriment of, for example, a business.
  If the taxpayer elects to pay by instalments, the number of annual instalments is eight. It has been represented on a number of occasions that as a measure of help particularly to businesses, including agriculture, the number of instalments should be increased.
  The Government have some sympathy with that point. We propose to increase the number of annual instalments from eight to 10. That ties in with the 10-yearly charge on discretionary trusts so that where the property of a trust is such that the tax can be paid by instalments, one instalment will be payable each year. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to simplify the present scheme by withdrawing the facility to pay by half-yearly instalments, which is comparatively little used.
  I am sure that the hon. Member far Blackburn will understand the relevance of the first part of the clause, and that he will not wish to press his amendment.
  The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to annul the proposed increase from £5,000 to £20,000 in the de minimis limit. For the tax on unquoted shares to be payable by instalments, the value transferred attributable to them must exceed £5,000, and they must represent at least 10 per cent. of the company's nominal share capital: or, if they are ordinary shares, must reptesent not less than 10 per cent. of the value of such shares. The de minimis limit of £5,000 has remained nominally unchanged since 1975. The extension by the Labour Government with effect from October 1977 of business relief to minority holdings in unquoted companies at a rate of 20 per cent., meant that for practical purposes the limit was then reduced to £4,000 and with the further increase to 30 per cent. agreed in clause 10 there will be a further reduction to essentially £3,500 on the old limit, or £14,000 effectively on the proposed £20,000 de minimus limit.
  The limit itself is clearly overdue for revalorisation. The equivalent in real terms today of £5,000 in 1975 is something over £13,000. An increased limit of £20,000 will, after taking account of the proposed 30 per cent. business relief, produce an effective limit of £14,000, broadly matching the limit as it was in 1975.
  It is useful for the Committee to put these specifics on the record, and I thank the hon. Member for Blackburn for providing the opportunity. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Straw: In the light of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

  DOMICILE
  Question proposed, That the clause :stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: This clause raises a rather more substantive question than the previous three clauses. It proposes to exempt from charge to capital transfer tax certain people who were domiciled in the United Kingdom but who, since 1974, have at some stage become
  1056
  domiciled in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. I am sorry to see the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) leaving the Chamber as I wish to quote some remarks that he made in 1975. I hope that he will remain for a few more minutes.
  It is well known that most countries determine which legal system should apply for the purpose of taxation by reference to an individual's nationality, but in Britain and some Commonwealth countries it is not nationality but domicile that determines the relationship between the individual and a country's tax regime. Although domicile has been a useful concept in matrimonial law, it is complicated and often imprecise. Because of its complexity and imprecision, it has been plain that those who have drafted tax legislation have found it inadequate. Time and again they have had to add definitions to domicile and add qualifications to residence to bring people into charge. That is certainly the case in company taxation.
  In 1975 the Labour Government brought forward proposals for capital transfer tax. They recognised that simply to leave the test of chargeability to domic:le would be inadequate and that there would be many loopholes. They proposed in what became section 45 of the Finance Act 1975 that people, even if they were not domiciled in the country at the time of the charge, would be subject to charge of capital transfer tax if one of three tests was fulfilled: first, that they had within three years preceding the charge been domiciled in this country and then moved either to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; secondly, that within 17 of the preceding 20 years they had been domiciled in countries other than the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; and thirdly, that they had been domiciled in this country before 10 December 1974 but subsequent to that date had moved to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
  6.30 pm
  When this was discussed in Committee in February 1965 many Conservative hon. Members, who were then in opposition, became highly exercised about this issue. The right hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees), the present Chief Secretary, suggested that if the clause were passed civilisation would virtually come to an end. He said:
  "This provision not only affects those who give up English domicile to assume domicile there but also imperils to a degree the well being—even the economy, and perhaps the political status — of those, until now, favoured islands." — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 February 1975; c. 1649.]
  Some of his hon. Friends went in for similar examples of exaggerated overblown hyperbole. Despite the opposition of Back Benchers, the right hon. member for Guildford, who led Conservative Members of the Committee on that occasion, listened carefully to the persuasive words of Joel Barnett, the then Chief Secretary, and suggested to his hon. Friends that they should not press the matter to a Division. He said:
  "The need for Chief Secretaries of whatever Government to seek means of trying to secure the revenue and avoid tax avoidance is something that any responsible party or Government must recognise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 February 1975; c. 1684.]
  Those words from 1975 remain as true today.
  Joel Barnett explained why those who are domiciled in this country and had then moved to the islands were treated differently from those who had moved to anywhere else. He said:

  1057
  "The first is their geographical proximity. It has been a relatively simple matter in the past for a person to establish legal domicile in the Channel Islands— and thus lose his United Kingdom domicile — by acquiring the appurtenances of a domicile in the Islands—a house, for example—without in reality severing his connections with the United Kingdom."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 February 1975; c. 1655–6.]
  The second reason was that the Channel Islands were within the area where controls operated. We recognise that exchange controls have been abolished since October 1979 so that argument does not apply, and will not apply, until exchange controls are introduced by this Government because they are forced to, or by the next Labour Government because we think it desirable.
  But Joel Barnett's main point still stands. It is in practice far easier to move one's domicile to the Channel Islands while still maintaining a major connection with this country than it is to move to the Cayman Islands or to other tax havens. Given that fact, and given that the right hon. Member for Guildford acknowledged the need to prevent tax avoidance and evasion by people moving to the Channel Islands, we were shocked to see that the Government propose in clause 12 to abandon altogether section 45(1)(c) of the Finance Act 1975.
  The Economic Secretary may argue that to have a cutoff date of 10 December 1974 for ever and a day is anachronistic because time moves on. We accept that point but the sensible way forward would have been to provide a moving cut-off date—for this year it could be 1974, for next year it could be 1975 and so on. We do not accept the case for abandoning altogether this important safeguard against tax evasion. Despite the flowery words of the Chief Secretary, who I am glad to see has come into the Chamber on cue, and his powerful opposition to section 45(1)(c) of the Finance Act 1975—I reminded the Committee a moment ago that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that civilisation would virtually come to an end if the clause were passed, and it would affect the economy and even the political status of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man—the Government have not seen fit to change the clause. I assume that they too have seen merit in maintaining it.
  We do not believe that it should be changed. We should like to know a good deal more about the so called "small loss of revenue" that the Financial Secretary suggested was at risk when he spoke on Second Reading on 6 July. Above all, we should like to know why when they have retained the clause for the past four years and when they know that there are risks of major tax avoidance and evasion from people who in reality live in this country but move their domicile to the Channel Islands, they have thought fit to abandon this safeguard.
  Mr. John Moore: I should like to respond briefly to the gentle way in which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) covered this historical debate. It is pleasant to do so with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary beside me. I will never be able to match either his wisdom or the poetic way that he manages to express his thoughts. So I shall not go back to 1975 to reiterate what he said.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn legitimately reminded us of the importance of domicile. The Government propose a modest change in domicile and I shall of course deal with the point raised about tax loss liability.
  1058
  Domicile is an important concept for capital transfer tax purposes. Someone who is domiciled here is liable to the tax on transfers of his assets wherever they are situated; someone who is domiciled abroad is liable only on property in the United Kingdom. Domicile can therefore have a major effect on capital transfer tax liabilities.
  The test of domicile is, under general law, essentially a subjective one. Broadly it depends on where a person's permanent home is. This in turn depends very much on intention as well as on facts and evidence about intention and is often difficult to establish authoritatively. However, liability to taxation can scarcely be left to a taxpayer's unsupported assertion; and when a dispute about domicile comes to appeal it can take a long time to settle. It is equally difficult to demonstrate that someone of foreign origin has become domiciled here in the face of assertions that he ultimately intends to return to his country of origin, even though he has spent the greater part of his life here, and to maintain that someone who was originally domiciled here has not acquired a foreign domicile, even though he emigrated very recently in the face of claims that he has severed all links with this country and intends to reside permanently abroad.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn rightly drew our attention to section 45 of the Finance Act 1975 and the discussions surrounding it. It set out a series of objectives tests for determining domicile for capital transfer tax purposes—the "deemed domicile" rules—in addition to the general law.
  These rules cover three situations. The first provides, in effect, that a domicile in the United Kingdom cannot be lost for tax purposes until three years after it has been lost under general law. The second provides that someone who has been resident here for income tax purposes for 17 out of the past 20 years of assessment is to be treated as domiciled here, whatever his domicile under general law. The third—to which we are addressing ourselves in this clause—provides that someone who has been domiciled here and acquires a domicile in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, both known as the offshore islands, is treated as remaining domiciled here without limit of time.
  It is only the third situation to which we are particularly addressing ourselves in relation to the clause; that is, that someone who has been domiciled here and who acquires a domicile in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man— both known as the "offshore islands" — is treated as remaining domiciled here without limit of time. The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the debate and gave an accurate description of part of the essential argument at the time.
  The original justification for the rule applying to emigrants to the offshore islands was that they were thought to provide particularly convenient bases for those who wished to maintain some contact with the mainland. Moreover, at the time when the rule was introduced the islands were within the exchange control area. It was thus easier to shift property there than elsewhere abroad. The rule has been strongly resented in the islands as being discriminatory. The removal of exchange control restrictions has deprived one of the main arguments in support of the special rule of its force.
  It is estimated that the cost of abolishing the special rule for the offshore islands would be £1 million in 1983–84 and £2 million in a full year—not vast sums but noticeable ones. Essentially, therefore, the clause seeks to abolish the exception to the general law to bring the treatment of those

  1059
  becoming domiciled in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man into line with that of those becoming domiciled elsewhere outside the United Kingdom. I hope, on the basis of that explanation—though I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not accept the tenet of the clause—that he will not press the matter to a Division.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

  BURDEN OF TAX
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 10, line 3, at end insert—
  '(1B) Property which is normally situated in the United Kingdom but which at the date of the death is temporarily outside the United Kingdom shall be treated for the purpose of subsection (1) above as property in the United Kingdom unless immediately before the date of the death it has been outside the United Kingdom for a continuous period exceeding one year.'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I suggest that with this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 17, in line 9, leave out 'This' and insert `Subsections 1 and 2 of this'.
  No. 18, in line 11, at end add—
  '(4) Where the estate of a person who died before the passing of this Act included immediately before his death any land in the United Kingdom other than settled land, and he did not indicate by his will how the relevant tax was to be borne his personal representatives shall not be liable at the suit of any beneficiary of the estate for acting in good faith on either of the two views mentioned below.
  In this subsection "the relevant tax" means tax on the value transferred by the chargeable transfer made on the death so far as it is attributable to the value of the land and the two views referred to are—

  (a) the view that the relevant tax fell to be borne by the land and

  (b) the view that the relevant tax fell to be borne as part of the general testamentary and administration expenses of the estate.

  (5) Subsection (4) of this section shall apply to deaths before 5 June 1981 in relation to land situate in Scotland and to deaths before the day on which this Act is passed in relation to land situate in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.'.
  Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate the new hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on his speech; I feel it proper that he should receive congratulations from the Back Benches as well as the Front Benches. I enjoyed his speech and there were elements in it which showed that in any election one can never predict the quality of people coming into Parliament. The press may predict that placemen" are being brought in, but as the vote last night showed, men and women of independent judgment have come here. I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech, especially the humorous passages in it, and I thank him for his kind remarks about some of my former colleagues on the Opposition Benches.
  It might help if I gave some background to this series of technical amendments. Capital transfer tax was introduced under section 28, and the related paragraphs of schedule 4, of the Finance Act 1975. Until 1981, the accepted view was that when free real property passed to a beneficiary under a will, the beneficiary himself or herself was liable to pay capital transfer tax, when relevant. A decision by the Court of Session in Scotland in Re Dougal in 1981 gave a new interpretation to the law
  1060
  governing capital transfer tax. The decision was that capital transfer tax should be paid not by the beneficiary but out of the residue of the estate.
  6.45 pm
  Because England and Scotland have separate legal systems, there was confusion as to whether that new interpretation of the law should hold good in English courts. Clause 13 of this Bill confirms the Scottish decision for both England and Scotland, and thus removes uncertainty for all cases where a death occurs after the Finance Bill becomes law.
  However, it is not clear under present law, as modified by this clause, what happens in the case of moveable property—that is dealt with by amendment No. 16—and it is not clear what the implications of the law now are for those cases in which capital transfer tax was charged to the beneficiary under the old, pre-1981 interpretation of the law on free real property between the passing of the 1975 Act and the present. This series of amendments seeks to clarify the law on both points.
  The proposed subsection (1B), which is to be inserted in section 28 of the Finance Act 1975, provides that all moveable property which is normally in England shall be treated as being in the United Kingdom at the moment of death of its owner, even if it is actually abroad at the time, except in cases where the property has been outside the country for more than one year. To give a simple example, if one lends one's car to a son or daughter and it is taken on holiday to France, and if one dies while it is there, the car, the property, is counted as having been in the United Kingdom for purposes of tax.
  Amendment No. 17 is technical and allows amendment No. 18 to take place. That amendment would add subsections (4) and (5) to clause 13. It is designed to protect personal representatives of a deceased person, executors—sometimes a much-maligned class of people; the result of Agatha Christie novels or occurrences in real life—who have administered the estate either according to the pre-1981 interpretation or to the later Scottish decision in Re Dougal. As the law stands, there is a possibility that disgruntled beneficiaries could take the executors to court.
  It may be that a beneficiary has paid capital transfer tax when, on the new interpretation, he would not have been liable, or it may be that other beneficiaries under the will consider that they have been unjustly treated in having to pay capital transfer tax from the residue of the estate, when the common view was that the recipient of the free real property should be liable, until the 1981 decision, to pay the tax. In either case, provided that those administering the estate acted in good faith, and provided that there was no instruction to the contrary included in the terms of the will, there should be no possibility of aggrieved beneficiaries taking legal action against those administering the estate.
  The differences in dates for Scotland and England proposed in subsection (5) are the natural consequence of the differing interpretations of the law relating to capital transfer tax which have obtained in Scotland and England between 5 June 1981 and the date of the passing of the Bill.
  I appreciate that these are technical amendments. I thank hon. Members for bearing with me and I look forward with interest to the Minister's response.
  Mr. John Moore: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and I share what I was about to call a clear

  1061
  advantage but, then, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary is sitting behind me and he is a lawyer; I was about to say that we are not lawyers. The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to alert me in advance of what is an important area of great technical and legal difficulty, as opposed to financial technicality. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who I see taking a keen interest in this subject, will be proud to know that it was Scottish law, as in so many other things, which led the way, and we are seeking in the clause to carry that forward.
  As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, clause 13 is intended to remove uncertainty about the incidence of capital transfer tax where the will is silent about incidence. Until the judgment in a Scottish case in June 1981—called variously Re Dougal or Cowie's Trustees—there has been room for doubt as to the rule in such circumstances in cases in the rest of the United Kingdom. The clause attempts to remove that uncertainty by laying down a rule of incidence, and the rule follows the Re Dougal decision. The proposed rule is quite arbitrary and leaves not unimportant questions unanswered. There is no obvious reason why a period of one year should have been chosen as a test. Moreover, the rule would apparently operate only if the property concerned was normally situated here but was temporarily situated elsewhere at the time of death. The amendment gives no guidance on how these preliminary questions are to be determined.
  Amendments Nos 17 and 18 relate to the absence of protection of personal representatives. As the clause will not become effective until the Bill is enacted, uncertainty will remain until then for personal representatives administering estates outside Scotland. It has been suggested that those who have administered estates on the basis of one view or the other during this period of uncertainty may be open to legal action by disgruntled beneficiaries. There have been fears that faced with this danger some personal representatives will not act at all. It has therefore been suggested that the legislation should contain provisions retrospectively covering actions taken by them, whether they have acted on the basis of the Dougal decision or on a previous understanding of the law. Amendment No. 18 would attempt to provide that sort of protection.
  Amendment No. 17 is a consequential change to the commencement provisions of clause 13. Ministers have sympathy with executors, who take on a responsible job, often for no reward. They have no wish to make life more burdensome for such people. In any area of uncertainty executors have a duty to administer the estate in accordance with the law. It is not open to an executor to make up his own mind, without proper guidance, on the course of action that he should take where there is uncertainty. The amendment would introduce a novel concept into the administration of estates by providing that an executor could sidestep areas of uncertainty, leaving beneficiaries to fight out the matter among themselves.
  Uncertainty about the incidence of tax is only one of many uncertainties with which an executor may be faced in construing a will. There is no reason why beneficiaries should retrospectively be deprived by legislation of their rights to have the estate properly administered in accordance with the law prevailing at the time.
  1062
  It is clear that these rights are matters for the courts. Existing law provides executors with an appropriate means of protection. Section 61 of the Trustees Act 1925 allows the court to exonerate an executor who has acted reasonably and honestly. For Scotland there is broadly similar provision in section 32 of the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921. The provisions of these Acts are of general application, but there is no obvious reason why they should be supplemented by provisions to cover this rather special case. We believe that they are adequate as they stand.
  It has been argued that if reliance were to be placed on them alone there could be a flood of applications to the courts. We feel that these fears have been much exaggerated. There has been no such flood in Scotland since the Dougal decision upset the previously accepted view of the law. There is no cause to think that the situation would be any different in the rest of the country.
  Treasury Ministers have been aware for a considerable time of views expressed by the Law Society and others that there should be retrospective protection for executors. However, after careful consideration we have, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, concluded that the current safeguards for executors strike the right balance between the security of the executor and the rights of the beneficiary.
  I hope that this explanation will be helpful. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, like myself, does not have a legal mind. However, I thank him for raising issues that are clearly important following the improvement that the clause will introduce in the post-Dougal era.
  Mr. Sheerman: I hope that the benefit to Re Dougal, wherever he may be, will be felt very shortly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13

  BURDEN OF TAX
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: The Opposition welcome this change in the law, which will overcome a difficult anomaly.
  Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

  DEVELOPMENT LAND TAX: CERTAIN OPERATIONS RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS NOT TO BE DEVELOPMENT
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Cook: Like the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am not a lawyer. That being so, I would welcome his assistance. The notes on clauses are more than usually laconic in their observations. They tell us that the effect of the clause is
  "to exempt development land tax: certain operations relating to the installation of advanced telecommunications systems."
  Although I am not a lawyer, I managed to work that out from the clause.
  I would appreciate a brief statement from the Minister on the necessity for the clause. Why is it necessary for the provisions within it to be in this Bill rather than in next

  1063
  year's Finance Bill? I ask for an assurance that it has nothing to do with the nefarious business that we shall be debating on Monday. I refer to the Telecommunications Bill.
  Mr. John Moore: The clause has a relationship to that business. It makes a technical but important change in development land tax as it affects the telecommunications industry. I shall take a little longer than I had planned to explain these provisions because, quite legitimately, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) wishes to have a proper and full explanation of the clause.
  The Committee will be aware that development land tax was introduced by the previous Labour Administration in a form which the then Conservative Opposition considered, rightly, to be damaging to the land market and the construction industry. The changes that have been made since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979 have ensured that the tax is in general no longer the serious disincentive that it was. Nevertheless, cases can come to light where, because of unforseen circumstances, development land tax could hold back developments that are of importance if we are to continue in the forefront of technological change.
  The clause deals with an incident that recently came to light. It is one of the Government's objectives to stimulate competition and efficiency in telecommunications. The aim is to put British companies in the forefront of world communication activities and so create more jobs in Britain and better services for British consumers. To ensure that effective competition develops in an industry that is dominated by one company, it is necessary that newcomers in telecommunications, such as the Mercury consortium, are not placed at an unnecessary disadvantage. There is already one major disadvantage for such a company in telecommunications. A new company has to set up its network from scratch, and that could give rise to liability to development land tax. This could make the launch of a new system extremely difficult, if not impossible, financially. We cannot allow technological advance and healthy competition to be frustrated in this way.
  Furthermore, activities undertaken by British Telecom under an existing general development order are exempt from DLT. The present order does not apply to a company other than British Telecom. This was another reason why the clause was needed to put competition on a more equal footing. It is the intention to lay before Parliament a revised general development order relating to the activities of British Telecom. The timing of that order is linked to the Telecommunications Bill. It is our intention that the revised order shall extend to other companies in the same business as British Telecom.
  Once the revised order has been made, there will be automatic exemption for the type of operation that is covered by the clause. This explains why the relief is temporary. In a sense, the clause anticipates the making of an order. It would clearly not be right for a company that happens to be active in communications to be disadvantaged relative to those that may come later.
  The clause provides that certain operations in connection with the establishment of new and advanced telecommunications systems are not to constitute development for the purposes of development land tax. That effectively takes them outside the ambit of the tax. Essentially, the operations concerned are cable laying and
  1064
  other closely associated operations. However, the clause will not cover the erection of substantial structures such as administration and control buildings. Their construction will continue to be within the scope of the tax.
  7 pm
  The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the timing and the need for the proposal. I have explained clearly that the private sector is waiting to get on with the job. Mercury has already started work on the installation of a network. It is vital to its success that it should be completed as quickly as possible. It is therefore crucial that the tax position should be clarified immediately. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister refresh my memory? Was the clause in the original Bill?
  Mr. Moore: No.
  Mr. Cook: I am glad that we asked the Economic Secretary these questions. He has fully and frankly stated the purpose of the clause. He will not be surprised to learn that we are unhappy at the consequences. He will be aware that he goes straight to the heart of the debate on the privatisation of the telecommunications system when he says that essential to any private sector company operating the telecommunications business is a network infrastructure such as the sort that is exempt from development land tax under the provision.
  That was a key matter in the debate on the Telecommunications Bill in the previous Parliament and will be the key matter for debate when the Telecommunications Bill starts going through the House on Monday. Many people in the Opposition and outside the House believe that, as there has to be a major and well-disseminated network of telecommunications installations, if any such business is to succeed, it is better that it is organised on the basis of a public body that has responsibility throughout the land for maintaining a single network. The intrusion of a second network which, for example in Mercury and other private companies, feeds off some of the facilities created by the publicly owned body, will disrupt the achievement of an effective, efficient, well-organised and well-invested state network.
  For those reasons, as the Economic Secretary will be aware, we have been opposed to private companies starting to poach in this area. Therefore, the Opposition will have to resist the clause, which provides a favourable tax regime for those companies.
  Question put:
  The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 77.

  Division No.23]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arnold, Tom

  Bright, Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brinton, Tim

  Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Baldry, Anthony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Budgen, Nick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burt, Alistair

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterfill, John

  Benyon, William

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Chope, Christopher

  Blackburn, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Body, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  1065

  Cope, John

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lord, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Luce, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  McCrindle, Robert

  Dover, Denshore

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Dunn, Robert

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacGregor, John

  Eggar, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Major, John

  Evennett, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Favell, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Marlow, Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Mather, Carol

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Maude, Francis

  Fox, Marcus

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Franks, Cecil

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Mellor, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Merchant, Piers

  Fry, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Galley, Roy

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Moate, Roger

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Moore, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Gorst, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Gow, Ian

  Needham, Richard

  Greenway, Harry

  Neubert, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Newton, Tony

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

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Normanton, Tom

  Ground, Patrick

  Norris, Steven

  Grylls, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Harris, David

  Parris, Matthew

  Harvey, Robert

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Pawsey, James

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hayward, Robert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Heddle, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hickmet, Richard

  Price, Sir David

  Hind, Kenneth

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hirst, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Holt, Richard

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hordern, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Howard, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Ryder, Richard

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jackson, Robert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Speed, Keith

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Spencer, D.

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Knowles, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Trippier, David

  Latham, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Walden, George

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Lester, Jim

  Watts, John

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Lightbown, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Lilley, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  1066

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. David Hunt and

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  NOES

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Marek, Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Nellist, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Patchett, Terry

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Prescott, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Radice, Giles

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Cohen, Harry

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Rogers, Allan

  Cowans, Harry

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Dixon, Donald

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

  Dormand, Jack

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dubs, Alfred

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

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Snape, Peter

  Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

  Soley, Clive

  Fatchett, Derek

  Spearing, Nigel

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Straw, Jack

  Garrett, W. E.

  Tinn, James

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Wainwright, R.

  Hardy, Peter

  Wallace, James

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Wareing, Robert

  Haynes, Frank

  Welsh, Michael

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Woodall, Alec

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Leighton, Ronald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Mr. Hugh McCartney and

  McNamara, Kevin

  Mr. Austin Mitchell.

  Madden, Max

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7.13 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  As the Bill has been thoroughly and expertly examined in Committee, I need not detain the House long on Third Reading. I have, however, two pleasant duties to perform.
  First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on a notable first contribution to our debates on these matters. My only regret is that there was not a fuller Chamber to hear him. Judging from the quality of his speech, my hon. Friend will not lack an appreciative audience on subsequent occasions.
  Secondly, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on his assumption of the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee. He follows in the very distinguished footsteps of Mr. Joel Barnett, the former right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton. How often we have seen them tackling the same tasks with the same zest and distinction. Our only regret

  1067
  on this occasion is that the right hon. Gentleman's new duties may disable him from taking as full and notable a part in our debates on Finance Bills as he has for about a decade. That marks the closing of a chapter in fiscal history, but I am sure that the whole House wishes the right hon. Gentleman well in his new and distinguished responsibilities. We hope that now and then he will spare a thought for us in our arduous task of examining subsequent Finance Bills.
  I do not need to detain the House further. The general principles of the Bill are well understood and it has been thoroughly examined in detail. I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for his kind comments, which I much appreciated. I agree wholeheartedly with his comments on the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). It was indeed a pity that the House was rather less full then than it is now, and it is right that attention should be drawn to the hon. Gentleman's contribution. It is rare to hear a speech of such quality and distinction from a new Member in Committee on a Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman clearly has much to contribute in Finance Bill Committees and elsewhere. We look forward to hearing from him again.
  In the past week the main elements of economic policy have been before us. The Second Reading of the Finance Bill was immediately followed by the Chancellor's statement on public expenditure. In this way, we have come closest to the aims of the Armstrong committee—to consider revenue and expenditure together and to decide whether we are prepared to exchange taxes for expenditure and whether this or that expenditure is worth this or that extra tax. For the first time, both the House and the Cabinet have been able to do precisely that. When the Chancellor went to the Cabinet to bounce it for £500 million in cuts, members of the Cabinet were entitled to say that as an alternative the Finance Bill could be withdrawn, thus saving the greater part of the public expenditure cuts.
  As a result of the Chancellor's action, the Cabinet and the House have been able to discuss both matters at the same time and to consider possible trade-offs. That is not the way in which we usually debate these matters and it has embarrassed the Government. The reliefs given to the well off by the Bill are in floodlit contrast with the cuts in public expenditure which hit hardest at the rest of our people. The Government's choice has been revealed for all to see. They were not considering a decision on taxation remote in time from another decision on expenditure. The choice was clearly made to reduce provision for the Health Service and other expenditure so as to reduce taxation for the well off.
  The Treasury Ministers' defence is that these tax matters were decided at the time of the Budget and are merely being implemented, but expenditure was also decided at the time of the White Paper in March, when the Government decided not only the cash limits but the programmes behind them. If it is right to adjust one set of decisions in the light of subsequent events, it must be right to adjust the other. Almost uniquely through the conjunction of events Treasury Ministers have been caught with their excuses down, and very embarrassed they have been.
  1068
  I had hoped that the new set of Ministers might have learned something during their sabbatical away from the Treasury. They might have learned from their past mistakes. Their initial reliance on the monetarist faith did not produce the miracles that they expected, but rather than question that faith they are now making fresh sacrifices. They hope that their new and bigger savings on public expenditure will restore the country to economic health. After all, at the beginning of the previous Parliament, in their White Paper on public expenditure, Cmnd. 7746, the Government stated that public expenditure was at the heart of our economic difficulties. It was not economic growth, industrial innovation or the creation of higher skills in management and elsewhere but public expenditure that was to blame. It is to that principle that the Government return. They believe that, if they reduce public expenditure, borrowing declines, taxes can be cut and the energies of our people can be unchained. It is no surprise that tax relief for companies and wealthy individuals forms a prominent part of this and previous Finance Bills.
  I am not sure of the theory behind the tax reductions for the wealthy. It is, at best, suspect. However, it is an unchanging part of Tory philosophy and, more importantly, of Tory practice. The practice is that taxation of the wealthy is reduced, the theory being that incentives are thereby increased. I have long held doubts about tax reliefs of all types that are designed to improve incentives. Many tax reliefs are inevitably complex in their legislative form, as the hon. Member for Elmet rightly said. It is not easy to demonstrate subsequently the beneficial effect that is claimed for them, whether they be on companies or on individuals. One can say with certainty that tax complications may not do much for incentives but, my goodness, they do an awful lot for tax avoidance. It is tax avoidance that will thrive on the complications in this Bill and the hurriedly passed Finance Act 1983.
  Throughout the previous Parliament I desperately hoped, despite my expectations, that the Chancellor would succeed in what must be the aim of anyone with his responsibilities—increasing the prosperity of our people. I have always felt that any Chancellor of the Exchequer should have two overriding objectives — first, the prosperity of the nation, and, second, the proper division of that prosperity between the different parts of our society. On the second point, there must always he a great gulf between the two major parties. We have different attitudes on care, welfare, equality and incentives. We present clear-cut issues to the electorate for it to resolve.
  There ought to be broader agreement on prosperity. We should agree about the encouragement that we should give to industry and the wealth creation process in general. It is a pity that doctrine should play so dominant a role in dividing the major parties. Some of us thought, with the Bank for International Settlements, that the laboratory test of monetarism would have proved conclusive by now. The country has to carry a great extra burden in the form of the errors that still find conviction in the minds of Treasury Ministers. In the next few years, those Treasury Ministers will have a difficult time with the decline of North sea oil output and as our balance of payments position worsens.
  It is indeed a pity that the House has not been presented with a Finance Bill that is more suited to our real problems than the irrelevant and divisive measure that we are offered.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Grylls: I am aware that the House wants to move quickly to vote on Third Reading. However, there is an amendment on the Order Paper which, alas, because the Bill has been drawn in exceptional circumstances—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, on Third Reading, he must confine himself to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Grylls: Alas, the new clause to which I am not allowed to refer was not reached. I hope that the Government will remember that, in the next Finance Bill, they must look to including a clause that deals with unitary taxation that is being applied in the United States on British companies in a grossly unfair way. It is extremely damaging to British industry and it is crucial that the problem be resolved quickly. I hope that the House will send a warning to the United States Administration and Congress that the British Government want the matter to be resolved in the next few months; otherwise a new clause such as we have not discussed today will emerge in the next Finance Bill and force the American Administration to resolve that unfair and damaging practice.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I, too, shall be brief, but not so brief as to fail to congratulate the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who has the good fortune to represent part of the ancient kingdom of Elmet, on his accomplished and cogent maiden speech. Nor do I want to be so brief as to fail to associate myself with what has been said about the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), to whom the House owes a special debt. By sticking to this one important subject through many Parliaments, he seems to many of us to have been an anchor man in Budget and Finance Bill debates. We simply rejoice at his promotion to an even more responsible and important task.
  For my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Bill marks a watershed because for those who, like us, have always wanted a radical reform of capital taxes there has until now been the balancing argument that we might disturb capital transfer tax which, for all its maladroitness and deficiencies, was working. The Bill marks a point at which we can ignore those disadvantages because it is plain that capital transfer tax has almost disappeared. It is becoming a voluntary tax and generally nugatory in effect. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will have no inhibitions in future in presenting the case for an accessions tax—that is the rather more correct term than an inheritance tax. We propose a tax on the recipients of gifts as well as on the recipients of bequests. It will be a tax on those who receive accessions of wealth, not on the donor or testator.
  As the Budget proposals on public expenditure and public revenue, which the House received sceptically in March, have now been admitted by the Chancellor to have broken down because of the hopelessly optimistic and grandiose allowance for shortfall and the absurdly small contingency allowance, it would appear that the Government should have revised the Finance Bill in addition to having revised sharply their public expenditure plans. Because the Government have stubbornly pressed ahead with the Finance Bill against all the danger signals which are so plainly showing themselves, we shall vote against the Bill receiving a Third Reading.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 72.

  Division No. 24]

  [7.28 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Harris, David

  Arnold, Tom

  Harvey, Robert

  Ashby, David

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Hayward, Robert

  Baldry, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Heddle, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hickmet, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hind, Kenneth

  Benyon, William

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Holt, Richard

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hordern, Peter

  Blackburn, John

  Howard, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Body, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Jackson, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Brinton, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Budgen, Nick

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Knowles, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Lang, Ian

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Latham, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Conway, Derek

  Lester, Jim

  Coombs, Simon

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Cope, John

  Lightbown, David

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lilley, Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lord, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Luce, Richard

  Dover, Denshore

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dunn, Robert

  McCrindle, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Evennett, David

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Fallon, Michael

  Major, John

  Favell, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Malone, Gerald

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Maples, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marlow, Antony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Mather, Carol

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Maude, Francis

  Franks, Cecil

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  Mellor, David

  Fry, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Gale, Roger

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Galley, Roy

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moate, Roger

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Moore, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Gorst, John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Gow, Ian

  Murphy, Christopher

  Greenway, Harry

  Needham, Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Newton, Tony

  Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Normanton, Tom

  Ground, Patrick

  Norris, Steven

  Grylls, Michael

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  1071

  Parris, Matthew

  Speed, Keith

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Stern, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tracey, Richard

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Trippier, David

  Price, Sir David

  Viggers, Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walden, George

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Watts, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilkinson, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Wood, Timothy

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mr. David Hunt and

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  NOES

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Barron, Kevin

  Madden, Max

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Marek, Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Nellist, David

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Cohen, Harry

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Rogers, Allan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ross, Ernost (Dundee W)

  Cowans, Harry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Donald

  Snape, Peter

  Dormand, Jack

  Soley, Clive

  Dubs, Alfred

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

  Straw, Jack

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Tinn, James

  Garrett, W. E.

  Wainwright, R.

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Wallace, James

  Gould, Bryan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hardy, Peter

  Wareing, Robert

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Welsh, Michael

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Winnick, David

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Woodall, Alec

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Leighton, Ronald

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McCartney, Hugh

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Mr. Austin Mitchell.

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

  Defence
  7.40 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 which together provide the basis for the disciplinary arrangements in the three Services. The concept of annual parliamentary approval for the special legal position of the service man subject as he is to the constraints of military discipline, as well as the rule of civil law, is a long established one in British constitutional practice. Every fifth year, the opportunity is taken to review in depth the needs of the service disciplinary systems, and an Armed Forces Act is passed, making such amendments to those systems as are considered necessary. The most recent such Act was passed in 1981.
  The Select Committee that considered the Act reported that it was satisfied with the procedures under which such Bills are introduced quinquennially with annual continuation orders, such as I am moving today, proposed in the intervening years are the right way to ensure that the working of the Service Discipline Acts is kept under review by Parliament.
  Since the Armed Forces Act 1981 was passed we have seen the dedication, courage and professionalism of our armed forces amply demonstrated in the south Atlantic, and these qualities continue to distinguish their performance and conduct wherever they are serving around the world. The service disciplinary system is an important factor in ensuring that our armed forces measure up to the high standards which we expect and which they have shown.
  I invite the House to approve the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1983.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I welcome the new Minister to the Dispatch Box, making his first speech as Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I hope that all his speeches will as uncontroversial as the one today, but perhaps next week we shall find out.
  Last year, the order went through on the nod, not because the then Minister or I did not wish to speak, but because of a procedural slip-up. A Division was called, and we were in our appropriate Lobbies when it was called off. The Whip, ever eager to get the Government business through, nodded his head when the order was read out. Therefore, if my speech is a little longer than I would have wanted, blame not me but the Government Whip of yesteryear.
  As the Minister said, this is an important constitutional measure and it is right that Parliament should consider it properly. It establishes parliamentary and civilian control over the armed forces. Originally, this was done through annual Acts, but now it is done through quinquennial reviews, followed by yearly affirmative orders. The exercise of that democratic control by the House is proper and in 1976 the Select Committee on Defence, when

  1073
  invited to consider abandoning the affirmative yearly orders, quickly refused and jealously kept that power for the House. It would not consider abandoning the orders.
  The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill of two years ago made a number of recommendations when it reported, and it would be interesting to see how much, if any, progress the Government have made. Most of the recommendations were made before the Falklands campaign. The Minister has, quite rightly, paid tribute to the forces that played a part in the campaign, and I readily add my applause. However, some of the matters that were raised merit consideration, and I hope that the Department now has time to consider some of them.
  Some of the recommendations made by the Select Committee have been overtaken by a new sense of urgency. I shall attempt to deal seriatim with the report, with particular reference first to those recommendations for action by 1986, and then to those administrative matters that it said merited some consideration. First, there is the treatment of young service offenders, and two issues are involved here. The 1981 Act very properly arranged for young service offenders to serve sentences, where appropriate, in civilian and not service institutions. However, paragraph 7 of the report showed a serious omission, and difficulty. It suggested that there were not adequate social inquiry reports made on the background of young offenders. The general defence of the circumstances was that the commanding officer would, or should, know sufficient about the background of the men under his command, and that there would be ample opportunity for officers defending those involved to get a proper social report.
  The Select Committee was not convinced and, when talking about the right of the officer to defend the young offender, said:
  "We believe that these factors represent a reasonable protection of the accused's interests but recommend that consideration be given before the 1986 Armed Forces Bill is introduced to the evolution of a system under which social inquiry reports on young Service offenders could be made more readily available to courts-martial. We note that the Navy is already moving in this direction."
  As that recommendation is an administrative matter, it will be interesting to know what progress, if any, has been made by the Government.
  It is interesting to note that the Select Committee thought, on the evidence, that this was not an enormous problem, as only about 25 young service men were likely to be involved. However, there has been a change because of the one-year youth training schemes for the three services, to become operative in the autumn. Over 5,000 young people a year will enter the services for 12 months, subject to military law and discipline. Although I hope that they will not, many problems may arise. There will be a need for a full social inquiry to be made available to the courts because, as the Select Committee pointed out, the traditional service view could not properly apply. If it did not properly apply to long-term recruits, it would not be of a great deal of help to young men and women who are merely in the Forces for 12 months.
  My second point arises from clause 2 of the 1981 Act, which refers to the treatment of young people and says:
  "Where a person … has attained seventeen years of age but is under twenty-one years of age".
  1074
  However, the statutory instrument creating the youth training schemes within the services talks about
  "A person who has attained the age of 16 years but has not yet attained the age of 18 years".
  What happens in disciplinary matters for that young person between the age of 16 and 17? He may be treated in the same way as people in the young leader regiments and youngsters who are joining the services, but the point still needs to be cleared up because the main legislation under the Act deals with young people between the age of 17 and 21 and the youth training scheme applies to youngsters betwen 16 and 18.
  Clause 17 of the 1981 Act abolished the death penalty under the Naval Discipline Act 1957 for civilians who spy for the enemy on board one of Her Majesty's ships or in a naval establishment abroad. The Government argued, and the Select Committee tended to agree, that the death penalty should be kept. It said:
  "Retention of the death penalty is necessary as a deterrent given that a potential offender on the battlefield, where death may result from obeying orders, is unlikely to be deterred from assisting the enemy by no more than the possibility of imprisonment".
  I do not want to rehearse last night's arguments, but the Select Committee commenting on the definition of the word "enemy", to which it turned its attention—that is,
  "all persons engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces, including all armed mutineers, armed rebels armed rioters and pirates"—
  said that it
  "seems open to an alarmingly wide number of interpretations".
  Last night, the House refused, by 116 votes, to approve capital punishment for murders resulting from acts of terrorism, by 81 votes for the murder of a police officer during the course of his duties, by 96 votes for the murder of a prison officer during the course of his duties, and by 170 votes in the case of murder as a result of shooting or causing an explosion. One can only repeat and emphasise that the definition, which the Minister seeks to maintain and which the Select Committee said was
  "open to an alarmingly wide number of interpretations",
  needs careful attention. We expect to have an early statement from the Government about their intentions, following last night's votes, and bearing in mind the way in which the Army has been employed recently.
  The Select Committee then considered drug and alcohol abuse. The Committee felt that more money should be spent on the remedial treatment of alcoholism, propaganda, and information which might help to reduce the amount of heavy drinking in the Services. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have been prepared to spend more money on that.
  Perhaps one of the most interesting matters raised by the Select Committee concerned the number of drug offences. The report said:
  "The number of drug offences committed is well below one per thousand Servicemen a year and most offences are with soft rather than hard drugs and are committed by men who have not tried drugs other than on an infrequent basis".
  It is certainly true that the Crown's forces do not have the problems of drug abuse that exist in other nations' Services, and I am sure that that fact has much to do with the fact that we have a highly professional volunteer service. However, it exists to a certain extent, and the Navy, taking the problem on board, started to use specialised drug squads. The Select Committee recommended that the Army and the Air Force should follow the Navy's lead in this matter, and should do so before the

  1075
  1986 Armed Forces Bill was introduced. As this is a continuing item, it would be interesting to know what has happened.
  The Committee also recommended that courts-martial procedure should again be examined, and considered whether service men should be tried at least by some of their peers, and not merely by commissioned officers. The Ministry's argument was that it would not be necessary, and that generally service men preferred to be tried not by their peers but by a commissioned officer. However, the Committee felt that that was too easy a reply, and pointed out that not since the Lewis committee and Pilcher committee reports in the 1940s had the matter been properly examined. It believed that a full review should take place of all courts-martial procedures before the introduction of the next quinquennial review. Clearly, such a review takes a great deal of time and care, as so many issues are involved. Accordingly, the Government should now be thinking about setting up such an inquiry. It would he interesting to know what progress has been made.
  On the question of professional legal staff, the Select Committee drew attention to the different practices in the services. It pointed out how the Navy took commissioned officers and then sent them to train, as selected volunteers, to read for the Bar, whereas the Army and the Air Force tended to recruit already trained solicitors and barristers. It felt that the Navy's system was perhaps cheaper and that the other two services should consider following that procedure.
  The Select Committee further considered whether more civilians could be used in courts-martial in both prosecution and defence roles. The general attitude of the services, particularly in prosecution cases, has been that a knowledge of military law and military lore would be of far more advantage, and that a civilian prosecutor might be at a disadvantage in certain cases. However, there must be many cases in the armed services similar to cases in civilian life, except for the fact that the person alleged to have committed the offence wears a uniform. As the Committee said, there might be a saving in time and money if more civilians were employed. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress, if any, has been made.
  Clause 13 provided for the treatment of servicemen and people in service employ who suffer mental illness or disorder while abroad, and tried to lay down the legal procedure to be followed before a person was returned to the United Kingdom for treatment under the Mental Health Act. The Committee felt that where two medical men were certifying a patient, it would be helpful if one were a civilian, preferably with psychiatric training. Obviously, it recognised that in many cases that would not be possible, but it recommended that wherever possible that should be done. It would therefore be interesting to know the number of cases in which that has been done, and indeed whether the recommendation has been followed.
  The Committee also dealt with the problems of children and young people in care abroad, who are likely to be ill-treated and exposed to moral danger, or are beyond control. It pointed out that although a fine legal procedure had been laid down for people suffering from mental disorder, the Department had not followed the example given in clause 13 in clause 14. It recommended that the Ministry should give urgent consideration to the construction of a legal framework analogous to that found
  1076
  in clause 13, within which such situations can be regulated. In any event, the Government should report to the House before the 1986 Armed Forces Bill, either in a Defence White Paper or in an appropriate defence debate on the working of these powers. We should therefore like to know when we are likely to have those reports and the way the procedures have been going.
  There are three other matters that are not of such great importance and so can be dealt with quickly. First, there is the assimilation of the women's services into the armed forces. It said that that was going well, except for the enormous anomaly, pointed out on various occasions in the House, and by the former Member for Eton and Slough, Miss Lestor, over the position of the Charity Commissioners in connection with the Royal Star and Garter home. They said that women could not be treated there, even though they were part of the armed forces. The trustees felt that they could not appeal against that, and the Committee recommended that the Government should find some way to intervene in the matter, either legislatively or otherwise. Perhaps the Government have already dealt with the matter, and my former colleague has not informed me of it. Nevertheless, that must be looked at.
  My final point relates to detention centres. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) is here. We met some of his colleagues when we visited the Falklands. The detention centre there was very different from that in his constituency. It is smaller, with no service men in it, which is rather fine. What progress has been made in the building of the new military training correction centre?
  I apologise if I have spoken for rather a long time on a matter that would normally have been dealt with more quickly. Nevertheless, this is an important order of constitutional importance and some matters need consideration. In particular, we must consider the position of young people and the Government's attitude to capital punishment within the armed forces following the votes in the House last night and the decision that there should not be capital punishment for many cases that are presently cited in the Discipline Acts. If capital punishment should not apply in civilian life to murderers of prison officers and police officers, acts of terrorism and others, it should not apply in military life.
  8 pm
  Dr. Alan Glyn: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box other than at Question Time. I wish him well.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) posed some interesting questions. Before dealing with those, I echo what the Minister said about the Falkland Islands. Discipline and courage were shown by our forces during the campaign. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made an interesting point about parliamentary control of the armed forces. That is of historic interest and practical importance. It is paramount in Britain that the armed forces come under the control of Parliament.
  We used to have debates such as this every year, but once every five years is adequate. If one reads the small print, it can be seen that this is a narrow debate and one must be careful not to overstep its boundaries. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about youth training and the discipline to which 16-year-olds are subject. Only

  1077
  the Minister can answer that. As I understand it, when they join the forces they will be in the same position as a bandsman or anybody else and the general Act will apply to them in the same way as to anybody else.
  I am not prepared to enlarge on the subject of the death penalty. I expect that the Minister will explain the position.
  I have not had much experience of courts-martial and defence but I have been on a court-martial. In many cases it might be an advantage for the accused to have a civilian to defend him who has some knowledge of law rather than someone from the Judge Advocate General's department. The accused should choose whom he elects to defend him.
  I want to refer the Minister to a matter which was raised at c. 470 of Hansard on 13 May, which affects my constituency. I thank the Government for their undertaking to rebuild Victoria barracks, which will have an effect on morale and improve what is at the moment an unsatisfactory position. Service men have to come into the constituency in full kit and then assemble in barracks which are not theirs. I welcome the fact that the Government will renew the undertaking that they gave in the previous Parliament to rebuild those barracks.
  I am sure that the Minister will answer the detailed points that have been raised so far and that he will also wish the youth training scheme in the Army every success. That is as far I am allowed to go if I understand correctly the limitations that have been imposed on the scope of the debate.
  8.4 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I want to ask the Minister three questions. I assure him that I have some knowledge of military discipline as my national service was with the Royal Military Police.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Get your hair cut!
  Dr. Godman: Despite that intervention, I am sure that any ex-service man in the House would readily acknowledge that the men serving in the Royal Military Police are among the finest, most honourable and fair-minded people in the land.
  My experience is somewhat dated. What is the legal and military status of service men in Cyprus who are facing trial on that island? If sentenced to imprisonment for a year or more, will British service men serve that sentence in a British prison? In those circumstances, can a Scottish soldier be transferred to a Scottish prison?
  8.5 pm
  Sir Antony Buck: I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for his remarks about the Falkland Islands. He and I were out there together and we had a most worthwhile visit. We admired the discipline of the forces there and the way in which they are conducting themselves. In the improbable event of there needing to be a court-martial of a service man in the Falklands, what arrangements are to be made? Will he be flown back, or will smaller disciplinary breaches be dealt with on the spot?
  One of those who looked after our group on the Falkland Islands was Major Tony Figg, the provost Marshal. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in thanking him and all those concerned with
  1078
  discipline in the Falkland Islands for the way in which we were looked after and for the way in which they are co-operating with the Falkland Islanders to ensure that the good relationship between our forces there and the Kelpers —they do not resent being known as that but they do resent being known as "Bennies"—is maintained. That is largely due to the work of those who are in charge of discipline.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that he will be happy in his job and we wish him the best of good fortune in it. He is lucky to have the job and the services are lucky to have him, so all should be satisfied.
  I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will say a word about how disciplinary matters should be dealt with on the Falkland Islands. It appears that they will, rightly, be based there for a considerable period with a fortress Falklands policy. I would like to know about the on-going — to use that terrible jargon — position regarding discipline there.
  There is in my constituency the military corrective training centre and I am on its board of visitors. I pay it frequent visits and it is a superbly well-conducted establishment. The staff there have two advantages. First, there is a high staff to soldier-under-sentence ratio, which is good. In addition, all the people there are young, which is a substantial benefit compared with a civilian establishment where there is a mixture of young and old.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: As one who served on the Select Committee that covered these topics, and who paid a visit to Colchester's corrective prison to see exactly what went on, may I encourage my hon. and learned Friend to continue to praise the standards operating there? The prison not only incarcerates people, but tries first to return those involved to military quarters. It also understands that those who cannot return easily to military discipline should try to get some sort of job outside.
  Sir Antony Buck: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He has told me before of the visit that he made to the MCTC at Colchester. I am glad that he shares my admiration for the work done there. I hope that that work can be improved in future, as the military corrective training centre is now being rebuilt. Frankly, that is not before time. I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 20 years and have been pressing for that. To maintain Army discipline a military corrective training centre should not be housed in clapped-out Nissen huts as at present, but in new buildings.
  In the long term, it is extremely wasteful to operate in such conditions. The fuel bill is enormous and it is more difficult to deal appropriately with soldiers under sentence if the conditions are somewhat primitive. I was delighted to visit recently the site of the MCTC and to see the foundations of the rebuild. However, it is not for me to delay the House for any time on such an issue. I merely reiterate that we very much admire the work done by the brave people in the Falkland Islands. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble, South (Mr. Atkins) for the tribute that he has paid to the work done by the military corrective training centre in Colchester.
  Do the Government intend to continue the procedure of having a short annual debate on this subject? At some stage there was talk of not having this annual debate. Is my hon. Friend the Minister considering any alteration, or

  1079
  will there be a short debate annually? Although we are discussing something of a routine matter, it is useful to hold a debate, albeit short, on this subject. It may well be that matters will suddenly arise, and that it is more appropriate to raise them in a debate such as this, than, for example, in the two-day debate on the White Paper to be held next week.
  I renew my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that he will be very happy in his new job. I wish him well in it, and look forward to his reply to this short debate.
  Mr. Stanley: With the permission of the House, I shall speak again.
  I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for his kind words of welcome. I cannot promise that the unanimity displayed in this short debate will always attend our defence debates, but I was grateful to him for what he said. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) for their kind words of welcome.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to a considerable number of provisions in the report of the Select Committee that examined the Bill in 1981. I shall deal with as many of them as I can, but if some points remain outstanding and the hon. Gentleman requires further help I shall gladly assist and will write to him. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the treatment of young service offenders and the Select Committee's recommendation about making social inquiry reports on them available to courts-martial. I assure him that, in view of the Committee's concern, the possibility of introducing a system of inquiry reports is being examined in the Department. It remains our view that a great deal of information is available to courts-martial from within the services. However, we should like to assure the Select Committee that considers the next five-year Bill that adequate safeguards exist and that we shall continue to look at the recommendation made last time by the Select Committee.
  Obviously the Government will take note of the view that the House expressed last night on capital punishment. Quite separate considerations, in our view—and in that of the House until now—have applied to discipline in the armed services. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when the Select Committee examined that subject in 1981 it was its unanimous view that capital punishment should be retained for the offences laid down in the legislation. I am, of course, aware of the Committee's recommendation about definitions, and the Government will examine that before coming forward with the 1986 Bill. However, the view that we have taken until now—and I cannot anticipate any change—is that special factors apply to service discipline which warrant the retention of capital punishment.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to alcoholism. The services are certainly very much aware of that. However, all three services take steps to discourage excessive drinking and officers are trained to recognise the signs of alcohol abuse. I am assured that, should problem drinking come to light, appropriate disciplinary measures are taken. Thus, there is no complacency about that. From time to time, of course, press reports highlight instances of drunkenness, but I am advised that it is wrong to say that the problem is more serious in the armed forces than in the
  1080
  community at large. Indeed, I stress that there is apparently no greater proportion of drunkards among our service men than among the community at large.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the treatment of service men in Star and Garter homes. That issue has not been raised with me before. It may be a matter of charitable status and, if so, I shall certainly consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about it. If I can help the hon. Gentleman further, I shall gladly do so. He also raised the important point of the extension of the youth training scheme to cover the armed services. The House will be aware that a few days ago we laid the necessary regulations to enable the armed services to make a direct contribution to the youth training scheme. We certainly believe that that measure is both valuable and helpful to those young people who are unemployed, as they will be able to benefit from service life and training. It will also help them if they wish to obtain jobs in civilian life afterwards, or if they wish to stay in the services permanently.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the form of discipline facing those under the age of 17. I understand chat those who join the armed services' youth training scheme will be subject to exactly the same discipline of those of the same age who are going permanently into the forces. Therefore, I think the correct analogy is with the young soldiers. However, I shall advise the hon. Gentleman if that is wrong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead referred to the Victoria barracks, a major issue in his constituency. I confirm that the reply that my predecessor gave to him on 12 May in a written answer stands. I hope that we shall be able to make progress with that rebuilding programme in the time scale mentioned in the answer.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked me three precise questions about soldiers in Cyprus. I understand that a soldier serving in Cyprus is subject to the provisions of the Army Act 1955 in the same way as a soldier serving anywhere else in the world. If he is given a prison sentence, he will probably be returned to the United Kingdom to serve that sentence.
  I am advised that a Scottish soldier would not be dealt with differently from any other British soldier in relation to the prison to which he is remanded. I am not sure whether there is any propensity for putting Scottish soldiers in Scottish remand centres or prisons. I doubt whether there is. A Scottish soldier is treated in the same way as any other British soldier in terms of the prison in which he serves his sentence.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North asked about soldiers disciplined in the Falklands. The normal disciplinary procedures apply. If a case can be dealt with locally, in situ, it will be dealt with in the Falklands; if it cannot, it will be dealt with in the United Kingdom.
  I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Government have no plans to alter the present arrangements under which we debate the order annually.
  From the correspondence that I have received in the past few weeks, it is clear that many constituents are interested in disciplinary matters and therefore many hon. Members will be concerned at a constituency level. It is helpful to have such debates each year so that hon. Members can express views to Ministers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy)
  8.23 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
  That the draft Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  The order is designed to bring three aspects of the criminal law in Northern Ireland into line with changes already made in England and Wales. First, it creates and defines a statutory offence of attempt. Secondly, it abolishes in Northern Ireland the offence of loitering with intent, often known as the sus law, and creates instead a new offence of vehicle interference. Thirdly, it creates a new statutory offence of conspiracy.
  The provisions of part II of the order relating to criminal attempts correspond to those introduced in England and Wales by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
  Part III of the order, repealing the offence of loitering with intent, also corresponds with provisions of that Act. That act introduced a new offence of vehicle interference to fill a gap which would have been left by the repeal of the sus law in England and Wales. The order makes similar changes for Northern Ireland.
  Part IV, the third substantive part of the order, relates to criminal conspiracy. The Criminal Law Act 1977 defined the ambit and essential elements of the offence of conspiracy and the related penalties in England and Wales. Subsequently, the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 provided that the offence of conspiracy, like that of attempt, can be committed even where the intended substantive offence is impossible in the circumstances. Part IV of the order applies these provisions to Northern Ireland.
  Those are the three areas of reform dealt with in the order. I should now like to explain the main effects of the individual articles. Articles 1 and 2 are mainly formal. The order, if approved, would come into force two months from the day of its making. Articles 3 to 6 are concerned with the law of attempt. Article 3 defines the mental element and the conduct necessary to constitute an attempt to commit an offence. The mental element required is an intent to commit an offence.
  The article therefore provides that a person may be guilty of attempt even where the attempted offence was inherently impossible. What matters in this situation is the intent, and that is determined by what the person believed to be the facts. The conduct, which is the other essential ingredient for attempt, must be something more than an act which is preparatory to the commission of the offence. This broadly repeats the present situation in common law.
  Article 3 applies to an attempt to commit any offence which, if completed, would be triable in Northern Ireland, with the exception of offences such as aiding and abetting where an attempt would be at a double remove —therefore remote—from a substantive crime.
  Article 4 provides that where special rules, such as time limits, apply to the substantive offence, they will apply also to attempts to commit that offence.
  Article 5 provides that, in general, the mode of trial and the maximum penalty for an attempt will be same as that for the substantive offence, except for certain offences which statutorily carry a lower maximum penalty.

  1083
  Under article 6 the common law offences of attempt and of procuring materials for crime are abolished. This article also ensures that the jurisdiction conferred on Northern Ireland courts by the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 to try attempts to commit certain serious offences, where those attempts took place in the Irish Republic, is unaffected by the provisions of this order.
  Part III deals with suspected persons. Article 7 repeals the suspected person offence in section 4(k) of the Vagrancy Act 1824. That provision relates to suspected persons or reputed thieves frequenting or loitering about certain places with intent to commit arrestable offences.
  While there have been very few prosecutions under this provision in recent years in Northern Ireland, the Government accept that the offence should be repealed there as it was in England and Wales. However, we propose, as in England and Wales, to introduce a new offence of vehicle interference. A person would commit this offence under article 8 if he interfered with a motor vehicle or trailer with the intention that he or someone else should commit any of the following offences: theft of the vehicle or trailer; theft of anything carried in or on it; or taking or driving away without consent. The offence would be triable summarily with maximum penalties of three months' imprisonment or a fine of £500 or both. Under article 8, a police constable whould have power to arrest, without warrant, anyone who is, or whom he reasonably suspects to be, guilty of the offence.
  Part IV of the order, which contains articles 9 to 13, is concerned with the law of criminal conspiracy. Article 9 creates a new statutory offence of conspiracy. It replaces the existing common law offence usually regarded as any agreement to effect any unlawful purpose. The new provision defines conspiracy more precisely as an agreement with at least one other person to pursue a course of conduct that will amount to or involve the commission of a criminal offence. This change is based on the recommendations of the Law Commission, which found general support for the proposition that it should not be a crime for two or more persons to agree to do something which it would not be a crime for one of them to do. The article provides also for "impossible" conspiracies, in much the same way as article 3 covered "impossible" attempts. Additionally, it says that there is no conspiracy unless the person concerned and at least one other knew that any relevant circumstances would exist at the material time. Article 9 applies to any offence triable in Northern Ireland and, exceptionally, to murder wherever committed.
  Article 10 sets out exemptions from conspiracy, such as agreements with an intended victim or between husband and wife.
  Article 11 provides that the penalty for the new statutory offence of conspiracy, where it relates to offences punishable with imprisonment, would be limited to the maximum term available for that offence or the most serious of two or more offences. As for fines, there would be no limit on the fine for conspiracy to commit an offence triable on indictment, but the maximum fine for conspiracy on summary conviction would be the same as for the substantive offence.
  Under article 12, proceedings for conspiracy to commit a summary offence could be instituted only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Where the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General would be required
  1084
  for proceedings for the substantive offence, or where specified time limits apply, the same requirements would apply to proceedings for conspiracy.
  Article 13 is concerned with consequential abolitions, savings and transitional matters. It abolishes the common law offence of conspiracy except in so far as it relates to conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to corrupt public morals and outrage public decency. It abolishes also the offence of incitement to commit the offence of conspiracy. The article provides that the acquittal of one parry to a charge of conspiracy would no longer necessarily entail the acquittal of others. It also preserves the jurisdiction conferred on Northern Ireland courts by section 6 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 to try cases of conspiracy to commit certain serious offences even though the conspiracy was formed in the Republic of Ireland. Those are the main provisions of the order.
  Part V, consisting of article 14, is concerned solely with technical repeals consequential upon the introduction of the new offences and the repeal of "sus". They are set out in the schedule.
  When the draft order was published as a proposal in Northern Ireland, its reception reflected a general welcome for a measure aimed at keeping the law in Northern Ireland up to date. Against that background, I commend the order to the House.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I do not intend to keep the House long, but it is interesting to note that, had we been discussing the original Act, we would have had a major debate. That says something about the position in Northern Ireland which is different from here.
  As I understand it, there have been only about 17 prosecutions and 13 convictions in Northern Ireland since early in the 1970s under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, a section which aroused a great deal of feeling in the House and the country. It is not a major issue. That says something about the nature of the cultural, social, economic and political problems in Northern Ireland compared with those of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  I do not know whether the Minister has a view on this —he may not have the information to enable him to form a view — but I should like to know whether he thinks that the previous Act and the new one would be more widely used if it were not for the existence of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I suspect that they would be.
  I have always had serious reservations about conspiracy charges. It is difficult to justify a conspiracy charge when no act has been committed. One has to decide whether two or more people have sat down and decided intelligently, thoughtfully and intentionally to carry out an action which in certain circumstances — albeit rather rare — could result in a life sentence, because if it were a conspiracy to commit murder, it could end in that way. I am not entirely happy with the conspiracy charge, but I accept that there have been arguments about it on a number of occasions in the House and elsewhere, and that argument certainly cannot be resolved during a debate on this order tonight.
  I suspect that I might be more worried about the offence of interfering with vehicles if the position in Northern Ireland were as it is here. The old Act required two separate actions before a police officer could arrest a person. The new Act requires only one. The problem with that is that if a young person has been crouching down by

  1085
  a car, looking through the window and, perhaps, putting his hand on the car door handle, he could be guilty of an offence. Under the old Act another action would have been necessary—perhaps looking as if he were trying to slide the window down or something like that. Neither of those Acts is satisfactory in this country, but given the number of prosecutions in Northern Ireland, frankly it would be irrelevant, if I chose to make an issue of it. We might want to consider the point again if, in more normal times in Northern Ireland, this became a problem in the way that it did here.
  I add a cautionary note, perhaps only to put it on the record, that to have such an offence triable summarily only and not by jury puts the person much more at risk because it places a great deal of weight on the police officer's evidence and little on that of the individual. One almost has to prove one's innocence rather than having one's guilt proved.
  The Opposition will not oppose the order, and I expect that it will be accepted in Northern Ireland largely without comment.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I can relieve the Minister's mind at once, if he is anticipating that on this occasion the motion might be opposed by myself or my hon. Friends. However, I immediately add that that immunity should not be held to extend to future commissions of the same offence. When I say "offence", I am referring not to the offences that constitute the title of the order, but to the offence that is offered to Northern Ireland and its people by the continuation of direct rule —of which the passing of the order before the House is yet another example. The Minister must not take it amiss if, briefly, I dilate upon the implications and the reasons why exception is justly taken to this form of procedure by my hon. Friends and myself and by those whom we represent.
  If the procedure continues, in accordance with the undertaking that we gave to our electors at the general election to do our best to put an end to direct rule in the compass of this present Parliament, we shall need to mark our displeasure by obliging the Government, if they decide to do so, to resist a vote against the motion.
  As the Minister has explained, the effect of the order is to apply to Northern Ireland the changes in the law of England and Wales that were made by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, including changes that went back to the Criminal Law Act 1977. I and my hon. Friends and the Ulster Unionist party believe that where there is no clear reason to the contrary there should be uniformity of law in Northern Ireland with the law in England and Wales. Although the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) pointed out some differences in the background in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales, he did not go so far as to say that he would regard this as an instance where there was justification in those differences for having different law in those respects in the two parts of the kingdom.
  In believing that there should be uniformity of law, we find ourselves in a difficulty. The law with which the law of Northern Ireland is to be brought into conformity by the order is a law that was in effect made without our participation. Upon the face of it, the 1981 legislation did
  1086
  not apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland and its representatives were, therefore, not brought into the processes of debate and consideration that resulted in the placing of that Act upon the statute book.
  We were not involved in the legislation, not because there was any doubt that it would sooner or later be applied in Northern Ireland, but because of the determination to maintain one of the consequences of the annually renewed direct rule, that being that Northern Ireland can be legislated for by Order in Council. Therefore, instead of including Northern Ireland in the 1981 legislation so that we would have participated on an even footing with all other hon. Members of Parliament in that legislative Act, Northern Ireland was excluded from that Bill.
  There is a procedure whereby an England and Wales Bill can include a clause that enables it to be applied, subject to negative procedure, to Northern Ireland with the necessary mutatis mutandis. Even if such a clause had been included in the 1981 legislation, it would have been plain upon the face of it that that was legislation intended to apply to Northern Ireland and, consequently, we would have had equal rights and equal expectation that we would participate in the legislation that was to be applied to our own constituencies and constituents.
  There is no excuse now, whatever might have been the case in the past, for this procedure. With the extension of the representation of Northern Ireland, there are now at least 12 working Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland in the House fully able and ready to cover the whole range of subjects which come before Parliament and to apply themselves to the legislation which is to extend to their own constituencies no less than to the other constituencies of the United Kingdom. The Government cannot argue that, as the law in Northern Ireland on these subjects may hitherto have been different from that in England and Wales, the application clauses would be complicated. I have never believed this excuse in any case because the draftsmen in other circumstances show themselves perfectly capable of whatever complexities need to be brought into a schedule to a United Kingdom Bill in order to make it applicable to Scotland or, if necessary, to Northern Ireland. Nor have my hon. Friends and I ever accepted the proposition that there should be "immortal, invisible" what is called a Northern Ireland statute book to which additions are not simply made by this House by ordinary legislation but to which additions will be made only by the process of Order in Council.
  We have never accepted that in principle because we have never believed that there is such a thing as a Northern Ireland statute book, as the law in Northern Ireland dates from a whole series of legislative sources only one of which is the legislation carried out in Northern Ireland by the former Parliament of Northern Ireland and by the subsequent brief and ill-fated Northern Ireland Assembly of 1973–74. If there ever was any excuse, which we do not admit, on grounds of maintaining sacrosanct a Northern Ireland statute book, it does not apply here, for we are dealing—we are specifically told so in the note on the order — with the criminal law, which is a reserved matter. In any case, the statute book that we are supposed to keep on transferred matters so that we can hand it over to the new, quasi-anticipatory federal institution in Northern Ireland would not include legislation of this sort.
  In short, there was no justification in 1981, and there will be no justification in similar cases in the future, for excluding representatives of Northern Ireland from full

  1087
  participation in the legislative processes of this House when law is being made which will be applied to Northern Ireland. If repetition of that procedure continues, we shall not rest content as we have done hitherto with simply putting the matter on record in debates such as this.
  We should be able — the hon. Member for Hammersmith substantially agreed with us — to make our voice heard where the law of the United Kingdom is being made. Where the law in Northern Ireland has hitherto been different or is to remain different, we should be able to discuss with our peers in the House whether that is justified. I noticed, although the Minister did not emphasise it in introducing the order, that in Northern Ireland, unlike England and Wales, attempts to commit a summary offence have themselves been since 1953 a summary offence. It is not proposed to alter that. So, in that respect, the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 combined with this order will still leave a difference between the law in Northern Ireland and the law of England and Wales.
  There should have been arguments—I am sure that I shall carry the hon. Member for Hammersmith with me on this—as to whether that offence is justifiable any longer in Northern Ireland or, if it is justifiable any longer in Northern Ireland, why it is not requisite in the rest of the United Kingdom. There may be reasons for that, but it should have been possible to test those reasons by the common legislative methods, in Committee, on Report and in debate across the House, in the same way as they are tested in other contexts.
  Mr. Soley: I would argue strongly that this House has the right and duty to debate any legislation that affects Northern Ireland. What we choose to apply to Northern Ireland, however, is a matter of choice for this House as well. Similarly, I would see a rather different solution from the right hon. Gentleman because in an all-Ireland solution I should be thinking in very different terms. Up to that point we are on similar lines.
  Mr. Powell: I do want to intrude or stray into the world of the imagination which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) inhabits, but we were substantially on the same point.
  I do not dispute that the extent of an Act of this Parliament is a matter for this Parliament but, then, I do not imagine that anyone doubted when we were passing the 1981 Act—in any case, we should have known and been told it at the time—that it was legislation which would be, and was deemed to be, requisite and applicable in Northern Ireland.
  We also agree, if I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, that if differences are to remain—and there is this difference to remain in respect of summary offences —that should also be decided by this House after due debate.
  Nobody could possibly seek to assert that we can test these matters properly by debating an Order in Council because, apart from the well-known fact that such a debate imports none of the normal processes of legislation, we find ourselves already committed by what has been placed on the statute book in a past year.
  I am glad therefore that, to the extent that it does not impinge on his dream world of the future, the representative of the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, is in line with my hon. Friends and me in resenting procedure by Order in Council for applying
  1088
  to Northern Ireland law which has been made for England and Wales in the knowledge that it would in due course be applied to Northern Ireland.
  I hope that the Government will not be deceived by the relatively easy passage of the order tonight and that they will not proceed gaily on their former course but will understand that they are now confronted with a representation of the people of Northern Ireland which is determined no longer to live under a form of quasi-colonial rule but which, being sent to this House to take a full part in the procedures, powers and rights of this House, is determined to exercise those in all matters which can affect the Province which they represent.
  I invite the Minister to convey that message not only to those corridors of power in which there are doors behind which the legislative draftsmen work, but that he will also convey it in quarters in which more distinctly political decisions for the future are taken. It is not the wish of hon. Members on this Bench to be a source of unnecessary inconvenience to the House, but I fear that if the warning that I have uttered tonight is not heeded that will prove to be the case, and that is a message which the representative of the Patronage Secretary — the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) — might also usefully convey to his master.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will forgive me if I deal first with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) because he raised issues which go much wider than the precise contents of the order. I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will have noted the grave warning issued by the right hon. Gentleman and will bear it in mind as we consider these matters in future. We are all anxious, perhaps direct-rule Ministers as much as others, to see an end to direct rule as soon as we can find an alternative method of government for Northern Ireland that is acceptable across the Northern Irish community. If that can be achieved within the provisions of the 1982 legislation, the machinery is available to lead us to the restoration of devolved government for Northern Ireland. We are only too anxious to see that machinery operate. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that if that is to be achieved it is essential for widespread cross-community support to be in evidence.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has the Minister reason to suppose that legislation, passed in the House by the due processes, which applies to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom, is not acceptable to all sections of the community in Northern Ireland? If he has such reason, why do the Government persist in so legislating?
  Mr. Scott: It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the way forward beyond direct rule for Northern Ireland is a return to devolved government on the basis of widespread cross-community support. We have said that often enough, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reiterated it before the Assembly only a few days ago. We look forward to the day when that may be brought about.
  The right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to whether the order should have been encompassed within the 1981 legislation. It was felt that both the 1977 legislation and

  1089
  the 1981 legislation needed to be examined in some depth and at some length to ascertain how appropriate it was to the needs of the Province. That was one reason, but by no means the sole reason, why it was decided not to incorporate Northern Ireland within the terms of that legislation. As Bill after Bill comes forward, consideration is given to whether it should be extended to Northern Ireland or whether equivalent legislation should be adjusted as appropriate to the needs of Northern Ireland, to be introduced by Order in Council. Pending the return to devolved government, it is important to preserve the integrity of a Northern Ireland body of law.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister evidently inhabits the same dream world as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). When legislation is being prepared, why do the Government deliberately refrain from considering whether it should apply to a part of the United Kingdom until they have enacted it for England and Wales? What possible justification can there be for separating the two processes in this way unless the intention is, quite deliberately, to maintain for political purposes — they cannot include the purpose of maintaining the Union—a distinction and a difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Scott: I am back on familiar ground with the right hon. Gentleman. He seems basically to consider every act of Her Majesty's Government to be some form of conspiracy against the Union of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The Province had 50 years of devolved government and we hope that it will return to devolved government. We believe that the integrity of its body of law should be maintained. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is a reserved matter. Although it is envisaged that transferred matters should first be
  1090
  returned to any devolved Administration which emerges in the Province, reserved matters could also become its responsibility.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith will recognise that the emergency provisions in the prevention of terrorism legislation apply only to terrorist offences. The extent to which that legislation impinges on others is a matter of judgment. However, the rights of constables are restricted to being able to arrest those whom they suspect of terrorist offences.
  I note the reservations of the hon. Member for Hammersmith about conspiracy. It is a step in the right direction to introduce in a new statutory form what was widely regarded as an unsatisfactory common law provision on conspiracy. Whatever residual doubts the hon. Gentleman may have about conspiracy, I hope that he will accept that that is a step in the right direction. Putting the provision on a proper statutory basis rather than leaving it under common law is a step in the right direction.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to vehicle interference. That problem does not loom large in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. The courts on this side of the water have not been in the habit, since the law was changed, of taking simply looking into a car and putting one's hand on the door handle as evidence of an attempt to interfere with the vehicle with the intention of taking it away or stealing something in it. There has to be positive interference with the vehicle with the intention to do one of the three things that I outlined in my speech. The courts see that as a more restrictive provision than the hon. Gentleman suggested in his remarks.
  We have heard that the order will not be opposed. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Hay's Wharf and Thames Riverside
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The matter before the House concerns nothing less than the life blood of this capital. The subject that I have chosen for debate is Hay's wharf, its future, and that of the Thames riverside.
  I shall first define the area. It stretches from Vauxhall Cross in the west, along the south bank of the river to the north side of the borough of Lambeth, into the borough of Southwark and down to Surrey docks. The area includes, because the two banks are interrelated, the dockland areas in the east end of that stretch on the north side of the river. The areas have become particularly inter-related of late because both come under the control, at least in part, of the London docklands development corporation.
  This stretch of the Thames riverside has recently been the subject of some of the most amazing—I choose my words carefully — decisions in our city's planning history. They began with the consideration that was given to the Vauxhall Cross site. That resulted in a decision, by a new procedure without a proper public inquiry, to have predominantly office development on a site in north Lambeth. Since then, on a sequence of sites, permission has been granted or approved, primarily overseen by successive Secretaries of State for the Environment in this and previous Governments, for millions of square feet of office space, which I would say is not justified by any demand factors of which this House is aware.
  What should be the purpose of the planning of the Thames riverside? The advice given to the Secretary of State by the Royal Institute of British Architects only last year was that planning should seek to attain a balance between development and quality, which
  "will require a deft touch in processing planning applications."
  The one thing that London has not seen of late is a deft touch. It has seen a sledgehammer approach to erect a wall of concrete and glass, which will separate the community of our capital from the riverside that is its home, its employment, its view, its past and its future.
  On St. Valentine's day this year, two weeks before I entered the House, an article appeared in The Times with this headline:
  "Developers may be building a South Bank white elephant".
  It stated:
  "A new generation of property developers is now taking on a gamble at which even their predecessors of the 1973 boom and bust might have quaked.
  A massive 11 million sq ft of office space is now available in the City and central London. Companies like ICI, Esso and Blue Circle are deserting flagship office blocks in droves in search of small headquarters, or moves to the provinces. Yet developers now plan to increase London's estimated 210 million sq ft of office space by an unprecedented 32 million sq ft—three times what the '73 boom produced."
  Many of them have decided that the place to do that—one of the few remaining spaces where it is possible—is—the south bank. The article continues:
  "But the sheer scale of the South Bank project, which could transform chunks of the river frontage … into sparkling ivory towers, has largely escaped public comment."
  I raise this subject on the Adjournment today so that it will no longer escape public comment. The House should have a reply to the question posed in that article. The South Bank cries out for development, but is 7 million sq ft of
  1092
  office accomodation too much for London and its community to swallow? The answer to that is an unequivocal yes. The communities south of the river are about to be trampled upon and the plans are, without doubt, too much for them to be asked to swallow. Indeed, there is a growing feeling even among the developers that the office space will not be occupied, and the statistics point away from any likelihood that the developers will be able properly to use the sites.
  I take a catalogue of sites to identify the enormity of the problem. I start at Vauxhall bridge with Vauxhall Cross, and then proceed by way of a range of sites, 14 of which are in my constituency of Southwark and Bermondsey. The first is Coin street, straddling the border between Lambeth and Southwark, where applications have been made and inquiries held but no development has taken place. Applications have been made proposing 92,000 and 82,000 sq ft of office space respectively and there is now a legal dispute about the site.
  One then proceeds to King's Reach, a development in which a hotel site was sold and the shell completed in 1976. The hotel company then went into liquidation. The shell was put up for sale and in 1978 an offer to purchase was made. Permission was granted for offices to be put in part of what had been intended as the hotel, but planning permission was refused for offices to be put into the rest of the hotel, so it has remained almost entirely empty. There it stands, neither hotel nor occupied offices. All that remains is the regular overhead passage of helicopters at 7 am on Sundays and at 8 am and 9 am on most weekdays. Even now, there are people living there—a pocket of people underneath, with empty office blocks, an empty hotel and the noise of the helicopters as their surrounding environment.
  Next comes a vacant site on the edge of Blackfriars road, where no work has started. There is then the empty Bankside power station. If it is demolished, the site could be put to community use, but there is a risk that the Central Electricity Generating Board may wish to sell it too, to developers for office use.
  Next comes east Bankside, which is a site of historic importance. It is where the Globe theatre used to be. It is near other sites of historic community importance, in a borough that has existed as such and been represented here since 1295. Southwark is the borough of Chaucer and, later, of Shakespeare and Dickens. It was the borough of London's entertainment, life and, later, wealth. Even the east Bankside development which, in many ways, is the most acceptable and desirable, includes office space.
  On Southwark bridge road there are vacant buildings and office space is planned. European Ferries in Bankside has now begun demolishing the St. Mary Overy dock. It is a historic dock, by the side of Southwark cathedral. European Ferries is demolishing some of the most historic, interesting and beautiful back streets in our heritage to create a tourist attraction and a great deal of office space. That is not entirely to be rejected and despised but the plans do not preserve the character and quality or enhance the great potential of that site.
  Next comes Courage's in Park street. That brewery has been part of south London's brewing tradition for more than 200 years. The site is now empty because Courage has moved away for various reasons, one being the lack of infrastructure to enable it to continue on that site. The company also suffered from the site having a high rateable value and high rates. There was also the inability to expand

  1093
  to provide local employment because it was not able to take over other sites. Fortunately, the site has been taken over. If the takeover and the plans are successfully implemented, we shall have housing and light industrial use on that site.
  The sites continue past smaller wharves until we reach Hay's wharf, which has triggered this debate. It is an extremely important site, from London bridge to Tower bridge. It has lain almost derelict for years. It was the subject of a planning inquiry two years ago which dealt with an application for more than 2 million square feet of office space. The inspector recommended, and then the Secretary of State approved, 750,000 sq ft of office space. Last week, without another public inquiry, plans and proposals advanced by the LDDC, which had not been revealed to local people were approved by ministerial order. Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the House approved planning by special development order.
  The Secretary of State sits in his office on this side of the river. He is a member of a party that has no support, bar a few incidental voters, in any of the places that we are dealing with. He belongs to a party that has been rejected time after time by the people and the communities that we are discussing. He gave his approval, so that planning permission for a scheme was thereby automatically granted. Hay's wharf is a private site and suddenly, about two weeks after taking office, the Secretary of State granted permission for 2·25 million sq ft of office space on the Hay's wharf site. That is 10 times the space that has been allowed for any other use. There will be minimal retail use and less than 400 homes, although other amenities are to be built into it. The plan worries even the Tower of London authorities across the river because it will spoil the view across the Thames. The people who just happen to live in Tooley street and the people who just happen to have been brought up in north Southwark have had no proper chance to say whether the plans are the type of development that they want.
  Then we move down the river, past the place where tradition has it that Bill Sykes killed himself. The land at Surrey docks was taken by the docklands corporation by an order passed in the House, without anyone knowing the plans. As I predicted in a speech in the House in March, the original plans were discarded by the corporation, which has adopted others. Even on the corner of the Rotherhithe tunnel a small site put up for public competition will have offices built on it. It is a tragedy that, one by one, the remaining pieces of land on the south bank are being developed in this way. I was brought up to believe that land belonged to the people, and that the people should use it for pleasure and to gain employment and resources. However, the prospect facing many of those people is not one of the river, by the side of which they were brought up, but of office blocks beside the river separating the community from it.
  It is increasingly accepted that wholesale redevelopment is a destructive, not productive, force in regenerating inner city communities. This community is crying out for shops, small-scale housing and workshops. At lunchtime today I talked to representatives of the private firms along the riverside who have an interest in this part of the river. They said that there was no shortage of demand for their work, but that they need some help. They wish to ensure
  1094
  that they are not penalised by high rates or by other restrictive practices. They know that there is a demand, and that if they cannot respond to it, trade will go to other ports in Britain or to ports such as Rotterdam and Antwerp. Then we would be left with schemes that will result in office blocks being erected quickly, but without any guarantee that they can be let. One of the especially harmful effects of the order, and of the planning procedures now being implemented, is that there is no time limit on the building of those blocks. With normal planning requirements local authorities may impose a time limit, but the plans for this development could lie on file for 15 or 20 years and no one could challenge the development of the sites. That is completely different from previous planning practice.
  That is one result of the special development order procedure, which is not designed to allow private gain but is designed for non-controversial matters, such as service stations on motorways or other garages. However, that procedure has been used twice in relation to Thameside development, and, it is threatened, will be used again to ensure that there is no consultation for mammoth development schemes that are completely inappropriate to the area around them.
  Southwark borough council tells me that small units of less than 1,000 sq ft are now being sought, successfully developed and let. There is demand, which is reflected by the greater London strategic plan and by the local authorities' proposals for the area. They are draft proposals in a draft north Southwark district plan. I do not agree with all of them, but at least they reflect the views of the local authority and, in large part, the aspirations of the local people.
  What do the people want? They do not have difficult or complicated demands. To start with, they want homes. Some 2,000 out of the 8,000 people on the waiting list for homes in Southwark borough want to live in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, but there are not the homes for them to live in. They also want to bring up their families with open spaces outside their homes so that the children can be brought up in a healthy environment and at the moment the possibilities of that are receding with every decision made by the Secretary of State.
  The exploitation of the land by property companies, however commercially justified they may see their development as being, will result in increased land values. That is harmful both for any public authority that wishes to develop the land and for any private occupier, tenant or owner who wishes to live there. It will be reflected in increased rates, rents and prices. Local demands are not being met and the tragedy is that with every one of these clearly and irrefutably undemocratic decisions, the whole logic of the way planning legislation has been allowed to develop in the way that it has is being, almost without notice, avoided and ignored by the Government.
  It is fundamentally wrong to say, as the Secretary of State did last week in his decision about Hay's wharf, that supply and demand for offices is essentially a matter to be determined by the market. It is wrong, as the Secretary of State for the same Department said in 1975 on the Greater London plan, before approving it, because if market forces are left to operate unchecked, much of London's housing land will be transferred to other uses. If one Secretary of State, when approving one plan, says that market forces are not the way to allow this priceless heart of our national, local and community heritage to be developed, it must be

  1095
  wrong that another Secretary of State, some eight years later, should say that market forces should be the determining factor. It is clear that the market forces will not necessarily produce the goods, even for those competing for the market.
  I spoke at the beginning about a white elephant. Increasingly, my fear is that with these decisions the Secretary of State has sent a white elephant to trample around the south bank. The footprints of that white elephant are increasingly seen to be leaving their mark in a way that risks the survival of the communities which should be there in their place. I make this plea on behalf of one of London's most courageous, most determined, most colourful and most hard-working communities—let the people be allowed to stay where they want to stay, in the sort of community that they want to be and not be driven out and separated from the lifeblood that is theirs and our capital's.
  9.19 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: I understand that as the motion on the Adjournment is in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) I have to restrict my comments to three minutes. This is not a technical, or even a planning matter, but one of the most urgent matters, which is of grave importance to the people who live in Peckham, whom I represent The land that the Minister is about to give over to speculative office development could, if it were used in the public interest, represent help for thousands of families.
  People in Southwark want a decent home. That is what they are entitled to. However, thousands of families live in conditions that are literally intolerable. They live in flats in huge estates and in high rise blocks, and they have no gardens for their children to play in. The Minister would not be prepared to live on the Aylesbury estate, the Gloucester Grove estate or the north Peckham estate. He would not want to bring up his family on one of those estates. However, for the people who live on those estates this land represents a way out. It is their only way out. It means the prospect of houses — and houses with a garden. It means the possibility of streets instead of gruesome walkways. The council is running out of space on which to build. Within three years, it will have no building land left at all, if this order goes ahead.
  If the council were able to acquire and build homes on this land, thousands of families would look forward to their future and not fear for their future. Instead, the Minister has agreed to plans that will mean either that the land is given over to office space or that it may remain empty for up to 12 years. If offices are built, it is virtually certain that they will remain empty, because there is already so much office space in the area.
  The Minister has made it quite clear where his interests lie. They lie with the commercial interests of speculative office developers. In catering for them he resolutely turns his back on the misery of thousands of families who live in Southwark. He should reconsider this order.
  9.21 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The words of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), whom I welcome to this debate for her brief few minutes, will no doubt be read by
  1096
  those politicians of yesteryear who are responsible for many of the conditions which she so graphically illustrated and which now face her constituents.
  This is the first time that I have replied to an Adjournment debate that has been generated by a resurrection of the Lib-Lab pact. I make no criticism of that, although it causes me some amazement. None the less, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising this important subject, and I am certain that the words of the hon. Lady, who I believe has been in the House marginally longer than the hon. Gentleman, will be read closely by many of the politicians in south London who we on these Benches believe are largely responsible for the plight of so many people.
  Before I come to the matters that have been raised in the debate, I shall paint the background. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on his detailed knowledge of London history and, indeed, those who have contributed to our country's literature, while being London residents. That appeals to me as a Londoner born and bred, and as one who once fought my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) when I was a candidate for East Ham, North in 1970. Like the two hon. Members, I represent a London seat.
  We all recognise that the Thames is one of the greatest assets— if not the greatest asset—of our capital city. Indeed, we must not forget that it was the original reason for the existence of London. For centuries, it formed the main link between London and Europe and the rest of the world. Other, more modern, forms of land and air transport have come along. Water-borne transport on which the Thamesside industries relied, however, has also changed. The development of modern forms of shipping has demanded deeper waters, not available in the central and upper reaches, and the docks have closed progressively. It is a well-known fact of history that the decline of the docks and dock-related industry has been swift, and some would say, devastating. London is not the only region that has suffered from that affliction.
  The first major docks were built in the early 1800s and operated continuously for 160 years. Closures started in the East India dock in 1967, to be followed rapidly by St. Katharine's and London docks in 1969, Surrey docks in 1970, and 10 years later, the West India and Millwall dock on the Isle of Dogs, and finally the Royal group as was announced in 1981, also closed. Riverside wharves and warehouses, their trade gone, closed down, leaving behind them many magnificent but empty buildings — part of our heritage.
  The strength of London and Londoners over the centuries has been a willingness and an ability to adapt to changed circumstances—not, as a colleague remarked many years ago in the House, being in favour of progress as long as it does not mean change. I certainly would not hurl that accusation this evening.
  There can have been few periods, if any, in London's history when such a change has taken place on such a scale. A whole industry, with its supportive industries, moved away, taking with it the livelihood and lifestyle of thousands upon thousands of people. I think that hon. Members will acknowledge that fact. Some people might have seen such devastation as insoluble and simply walked away from it. We in London could not take, and have not taken, that view.

  1097
  One has only to look along the river to see major new developments which have taken place during the post-war years, which are thriving and providing work for the people we represent. I speak not only as the Minister with responsibility for planning but even more as a London Member, as indeed is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Many people have dreamed that it would be possible to produce a grand design for redeveloping the whole of London's river frontage, thinking perhaps of Paris. But opportunities for that kind of grand exercise are rare and simply not available now in London. Too many, indeed most, of the major sites on the river have already been developed to allow that grand design. What we need to do now is to carry that redevelopment forward in a coherent way, preserving the best of the past and producing new developments which meet today's needs and reflect the best architecture of our times.
  While the grand scheme is not open to us, one important theme should be pursued when potential riverside development is contemplated. Ideally, any new development should reopen access to the riverside for the enjoyment and recreation of the general public. For too long the river has been walled—indeed, even isolated from view. Wherever possible such access should be extended along the bank to provide riverside walks.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey raised some questions about planning procedures. Let me make clear at this stage the statutory basis, which I have no need to justify. Parliament decided, when it passed the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, that there should be a procedure, as the hon. Gentleman said—section 148 — under which an urban development corporation could submit proposals for development to my right hon. Friend for his approval. This procedure has been in existence for many years and proved its worth, certainly in new town development. It also decided in effect that the procedure for my right hon. Friend to consider such proposals should be reasonably speedy, while insisting that he should consult interested local authorities before reaching his decision. I submit that such a procedure is reasonable when set against the overall directive given to a development corporation in section 136 of the Act to secure the regeneration of that area. That is the most important feature. One must remember the importance of the regeneration of a community.
  The London Docklands Development Corporation having properly submitted proposals for development of the Hay's wharf area under section 148, my right hon. Friend was under a statutory duty to consider them, and that he has done. He has given his reasons for approving those proposals in his decision letter, a copy of which has been sent to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure this House would expect no other course to be taken by my right hon. Friend.
  As to the hon. Gentleman's claim that the consultation procedure carried out was cursory, I can only say that it was fully in accord with the terms of the Act. Equally, it is true that much of it took place during the run-up to the general election. Though the media and hon. Members may choose to take a different view, life is not suspended, nor are the local authorities, during an election period and statutory processes go ahead.
  1098
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I can give an undertaking that section 148 procedures will not be used again. Of course I cannot and will not—the procedures are there, and are there to be used if that seems to the applicants to be the appropriate way forward. They will remain to be used as and until Parliament decides otherwise and takes steps to repeal them.
  The question arises when it is right to give planning permission and whether it is the local planning authority or my right hon. Friend involved. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that there were other preferable uses for the site about which he expressed most concern —Hay's wharf. I must point out that the only proposal before my right hon. Friend was that put forward by the London docklands development corporation, which incorporates significant office development as well as other commercial, technological industry, housing and recreational open space uses. Planning authorities—or in this case my right hon. Friend—are called upon in such circumstances to decide whether what is proposed is an acceptable use, on planning grounds, of the site in question. It is not a matter of whether what is proposed is the only use which may be possible or, indeed, acceptable.
  There is no reason why more than one form of development should not be approved in respect of any particular site if proposals are put forward in the appropriate form. Planning permission opens the way for development. It does not compel it. It must be for the owner or developer to judge the most appropriate time for development to begin, based upon his assessment of market demand. That is an important consideration. He must be allowed to judge the pace at which larger phased developments take place — all of course, within the general constraint that planning permissions are time limited.
  The hon. Gentleman touched on times, and I must remind him that it is not true that there are no time limits as far as Hay's wharf is concerned. There are time limits in the Hay's wharf approval. Phase one is five years to begin, and phase two is seven years. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the problems of unemployment in his constituency and to the particular skills and needs of the labour force. We all share his anxiety, and I have total sympathy with him in his concern. However, these problems cannot necessarily be solved by the planning process. The needs as I perceive them are to press ahead with regenerating the rundown areas with all possible speed. Just about every area that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has been progressively run down. That is true whether the area is by Vauxhall bridge or in any of the other parts that he mentioned. We are talking about regenerating that river front, and we are determined to regenerate those rundown areas with all possible speed and with developments that have an economic demand and a soundly based future. Only in that way will the local economy revive.
  I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider that point, because, whatever his views, I believe that there are many important features to the development that will help his constituents. Successful developments bring in their train others that feed on and support them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that, because I know that he cares deeply about the issues involved. However, such developments can help in many ways.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The nature of the work force is such that the majority of people are trained, or at least semi-skilled, in occupations that are not reflected primarily in commercial developments. From the history of London it is clear that commercial developments bring employment primarily to those who live outside the city. The only exception is the service element. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that one consideration that is as important as any other is that the development should take place not necessarily quickly—because that has no merit in itself—but in a way that meets the demand for work and takes account of the skills of the local community, as evidenced by all the figures available?
  Mr. Macfarlane: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and shall come to that later. An important point is that people commute daily because the necessary facilities and dwellings do not exist in most inner city areas.
  To refuse proposals simply because they do not meet immediately perceived needs for other forms of development for which there are neither proposals nor market demand could be a recipe for stagnation and the continuation of dereliction. Those are the very problems that we are trying to overcome. Dereliction, unused and underused sites, decaying buildings and corrugated iron are all the classic symptoms of inner city deprevation in our older areas. They all act as disincentives to the attraction of new industry and commerce and can and do lead to further decay, and to a sense of total exasperation and despair.
  Major developments such as Hay's wharf, when they can be attracted to such areas, make enormous contributions. They contribute to employment during construction and after. They make a contribution to the quality of life in the area. They may generate civic pride. They contribute to local services, supply industries and rate income.
  What needs to be done with the decaying areas? We need to encourage development which can lift up the older areas and improve the environment to make them places where people want to live and work and invest in the future. That cannot be achieved by any one body or agency.
  We believe that we need drive, enthusiasm and co-operation. By that I mean co-operation between central Government, local government, the private sector and the local community.
  The Government, for their part, are working to that end and I am pleased to say that the private sector is enthusiastically joining with them. Local government is perhaps more patchy in its response, but in many areas is also active in promotion.
  We have particularly recognised the size of the problems of dereliction and underutilisation of docklands from Tower bridge to Beckton on the north bank and from London bridge around the Southwark peninsula on the south bank. The Government established the London docklands development corporation to tackle the task of regenerating the area. What was needed was a single-minded, clearly identifiable, development agency, with development control powers, which could act as a catalyst for the involvement of the private sector and direct public resources to where they are most needed. In only two years the LDDC has made a significant contribution to the regeneration of docklands.
  1100
  The LDDC has secured the first large-scale development of housing for sale in docklands since the war, with the emphasis on low cost housing within reach of the local people. Four major private builders have developed a 22 acres site for 601 houses and flats, and site preparation for a further 1,080 has begun. In Southwark, the LDDC has released land on five sites on which 450 homes are being built. The first dozen of the homes for private sale were sold immediately on completion to local people and there is evidence of considerable local demand — one developer was, indeed, overwhelmed by the numbers of local tenants who queued overnight seeking to buy.
  In the Lavender dock area the LDDC is helping to finance a housing association to purchase 111 of the new homes for renting to some of the residents of the rundown London borough of Southwark-owned Downtown estates. This became necessary to keep faith with Downtown residents when Southwark reneged on an agreement with LDDC whereby Southwark would purchase new housing provided on LDDC land.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have been round some of the houses and I know that the need for them exists. I hope that the Minister accepts that houses costing £50,000 and £60,000 do not meet local people's needs. Has the LDDC already reconsidered the price range so that particularly round Greenland dock a lower cost housing scheme will be approved?
  The Minister said that the community was part of the co-operative plan. Why is it that the Secretary of State, having consulted during the election campaign—perhaps not the best time — and held a public meeting in Southwark, chaired and run by the two local authorities concerned and which revealed unanimous opposition to the proposals, did not think it necessary to hold a public inquiry? It was clear that the one public consultation resulted in total opposition to the proposal.
  Mr. Macfarlane: One public consultation is not the only way. It is certainly not the most successful way of ensuring a speedy regeneration. I cannot answer fully all the questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked, but I shall ensure that he receives replies.
  In the development of any housing estate, there must be a range of prices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be noted. I shall take them up.
  Many people in the area thought that the land would be used to rehouse tenants of the downtown blocks and that the vacated blocks would be sold to the LDDC which would then arrange for their demolition and redevelopment, in some cases conversion, to provide further low-cost housing.
  In April 1982, the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone was designated and the LDDC has been carrying out major infrastructure work costing about £7 million. The hon. Member is as interested as I am in the regeneration of the river front. Over 100 acres of land have been released on the market, and the first disposals to the private sector have been completed. About 250,000 sq ft of factory space is being built. That is no mean achievement in a comparatively short time, and it bodes well for the future.
  In carrying out these developments and in considering others which have been approved, and to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, we and the other bodies involved have been concerned to see that the proposals put forward

  1101
  will stand the test of architectural quality. Design competitions are one means of achieving this—though not the only one. The London docklands development corporation is committed to achieving good design and in its two most recent exercises, at Elephant lane and Cherry Garden pier it has, respectively, run and is about to run competitions working closely with the Royal Institute of British Architects. In the case of Elephant lane, where the judging is complete, a representative of the local tenants association was brought in as one of the assessors. It was a useful example of local community involvement.
  The designs of buildings of course never, or hardly ever, satisfy everyone. The hon. Gentleman and I might disagree, but "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" holds just as firmly in architecture as it does in other fields. There are those who wish to see reproductions of buildings already in existence. There are high tech modernists and others. Reconciliation of each view is not easy—it may be impossible. To the hon. Gentleman's request to sustain an architectural distinction between the two banks of the river I can say only that I can see no point, nor can I see how it could best be achieved. Let us by all means preserve the best of the old—as in Hay's wharf the promoters are proposing to do—but let us not be frightened of the new. Let us rather see that it can live in harmony with the old. That is an important amalgam.
  1102
  I was asked also how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered the proposals. On that, as on other matters, he considered the proposals, the representations made on them by the consultees and advice available to him from within the Department of the Environment. As I have already pointed out, my right hon. Friend is and has been a London Member for many years. I doubt whether he, any more than other London Members, can have attended this place regularly without being aware of the situation at a site as prominent and as close to the Palace of Westminster as Hay's wharf.
  Things are moving on the regeneration of the Thames riverside. We are firm in our policy of pressing ahead to produce an environment of which London can be proud. At one stage of his speech the hon. Gentleman was overly gloomy. I do not know whether he has a political point to put forward or what pressures he has from his constituency, but I believe that, with his open mind, he must recognise that a great deal of good is coming out of what we are now planning. This will enable the Thamesside area to continue to do what it has always done —contribute to the greater welfare of London and the country at large.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Ten o'clock.

ENERGY
  Standing Charges
  Standing Charges
  UKAEA Constabulary (Firearms)
  UKAEA Constabulary (Firearms)
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Conservation (Report)
  Conservation (Report)
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
CIVIL SERVICE
  Personnel Work (Review)
  Personnel Work (Review)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Market Harborough
  Market Harborough
  Employment Creation
  Employment Creation
  Government Departments (Disabled Persons)
  Government Departments (Disabled Persons)
  Nuclear Tests (Survey)
  Nuclear Tests (Survey)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Solihull (Free Port)
  Solihull (Free Port)
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Revenue
  Revenue
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  Concessionary Coal
  Concessionary Coal
  International Businesses (Taxation)
  International Businesses (Taxation)
  Currency
  Currency
  Excise Duties
  Excise Duties
  European Community (Finance Council)
  European Community (Finance Council)
  Finance Bill
  Finance Bill
  Government Assets (Sale)
  Government Assets (Sale)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Nuclear Air Raid Shelters
  Nuclear Air Raid Shelters
  Home Defence College
  Home Defence College
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Merseyside Police Force
  Merseyside Police Force
  Parole
  Parole
  Mr. James Horsfall
  Mr. James Horsfall
  Video Cassettes
  Video Cassettes
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Police Powers
  Police Powers
  Prison Discipline
  Prison Discipline
  Police Forces and Fire Brigades (Protective Clothing)
  Police Forces and Fire Brigades (Protective Clothing)
  Buildings and Installations (Cardiff)
  Buildings and Installations (Cardiff)
  Yorkshire Ripper
  Yorkshire Ripper
  Police Officers (Memoirs)
  Police Officers (Memoirs)
  Penal Institutions (Discipline)
  Penal Institutions (Discipline)
  Police (Press Conferences)
  Police (Press Conferences)
  Charities
  Charities
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Detained Persons (Bedfordshire)
  Detained Persons (Bedfordshire)
  Elections (Postal Votes)
  Elections (Postal Votes)
  Election System
  Election System
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  LD 50 Test
  LD 50 Test
  Experiments on Animals
  Experiments on Animals
  Wiltshire Constabulary
  Wiltshire Constabulary
  Dispersal Prisons
  Dispersal Prisons
WALES
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  National Health Services (Facilities)
  National Health Services (Facilities)
  Rhydlafar Hospital
  Rhydlafar Hospital
  National Health Service (Pilfering)
  National Health Service (Pilfering)
  Level Crossings
  Level Crossings
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Top Salaries Review Body
  Top Salaries Review Body
  Creche Facilities
  Creche Facilities
DEFENCE
  NATO (Task Group Deployment)
  NATO (Task Group Deployment)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Army Warehouse, Donnington
  Army Warehouse, Donnington
  Treaty of Tlatelolco
  Treaty of Tlatelolco
  South African Defence Force
  South African Defence Force
  Vessel Herta Maersk
  Vessel Herta Maersk
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Miss Geraldine Bennett
  Miss Geraldine Bennett
EMPLOYMENT
  Pottery Industry
  Pottery Industry
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Training for Skills Programme
  Training for Skills Programme
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Baling Machines (Accidents)
  Baling Machines (Accidents)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabbit Control
  Rabbit Control
  Oilseed (Subsidy)
  Oilseed (Subsidy)
  Gangmasters
  Gangmasters
  Live Animal Exports
  Live Animal Exports
  Battery Farming
  Battery Farming
  Council of Fisheries (Meeting)
  Council of Fisheries (Meeting)
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
NORTHERN IRELAND
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Ballot Papers
  Ballot Papers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Government House, Gibraltar (Incident)
  Government House, Gibraltar (Incident)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Amateur Radio Wavebands
  Amateur Radio Wavebands
  Steel
  Steel
  Vehicle Components Industry
  Vehicle Components Industry
  Enterprise Agencies
  Enterprise Agencies
  Property Companies (Default Action)
  Property Companies (Default Action)
  Advisory Panel on Company Law
  Advisory Panel on Company Law
  Turkey (Textile and Clothing)
  Turkey (Textile and Clothing)
  Hot Strip Mill, Port Talbot
  Hot Strip Mill, Port Talbot
  Legislative Priorities
  Legislative Priorities
  Internal Security Technology
  Internal Security Technology
SCOTLAND
  Primary Schools (Composite Classes)
  Primary Schools (Composite Classes)
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Local Authorities (Financial Information)
  Local Authorities (Financial Information)
  Right-to-Buy
  Right-to-Buy
  Scottish Committee of Action on Smoking and Health
  Scottish Committee of Action on Smoking and Health
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Forth and Clyde Canal
  Forth and Clyde Canal
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  House Sales
  House Sales
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Housing Grants
  Housing Grants
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
  Gaelic
  Gaelic
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
ENVIRONMENT
  Buildings (Structural Safety)
  Buildings (Structural Safety)
  Metropolitan County Councils (Abolition)
  Metropolitan County Councils (Abolition)
  Property Services Agency (Contracts)
  Property Services Agency (Contracts)
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
  Leeds District Council (Airey Houses)
  Leeds District Council (Airey Houses)
  Merseyside Urban Development Corporation
  Merseyside Urban Development Corporation
  Block Grant
  Block Grant
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
TRANSPORT
  Builders' Skips
  Builders' Skips
  Seat Belts (Exemption)
  Seat Belts (Exemption)
  Helicopter Flights (Dyce-Sumburgh)
  Helicopter Flights (Dyce-Sumburgh)
  Airports (Statistics)
  Airports (Statistics)
  Road Traffic Act 1972 (Amendment)
  Road Traffic Act 1972 (Amendment)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Mental Patients (Electoral Registration)
  Mental Patients (Electoral Registration)
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  NHS (Burns Units)
  NHS (Burns Units)
  Central Ordnance Depot Fire (Health Risk)
  Central Ordnance Depot Fire (Health Risk)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Doctors (Unemployment)
  Doctors (Unemployment)
  Elderly Persons (Benefits)
  Elderly Persons (Benefits)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Nurses (Accommodation)
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Social Service Records (Access)
  Social Service Records (Access)
  "S Manual"
  "S Manual"
  Census
  Census

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Sexual Offences Against Minors: Penalties
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the level of penalties for those convicted of sexual offences against minors, especially by teachers in respect of children in their charge.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the maximum sentences available vary with the particular offence from life imprisonment downwards. The Criminal Law Revision Committee is giving attention to the question whether the existing law and penalties give sufficient protection to children against those in a position of trust. The actual level of penalties imposed within the maxima is for the judiciary and not Her Majesty's Government. In addition to criminal sanctions there are administrative sanctions available to the Secretary of State for Education against those who are employed to work with children who commit these offences.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that helpful reply. Nevertheless, in view of the traumatic effects of such offences on young children, which frequently last throughout their lives, is he aware of a case heard in a magistrates' court in Birmingham on 23rd March when the headmaster of a Roman Catholic school, who has now resigned, was fined £400 with £250 costs for sexual offences against young girls in his charge aged nine to 10 extending over a period of three years?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must tell the noble Viscount that members of the Executive cannot comment constitutionally upon matters which are in the purview of the judiciary.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, as it is open to a convicted person to appeal against an unduly harsh sentence, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it would not be certainly more logical, probably sensible, and certainly promote confidence in the administration of criminal justice if the Crown had a corresponding right to appeal against what might be regarded as a derisory sentence for any offence, quite apart from the ones in this Question?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, such a proposal is canvassed from time to time. It would require primary
890
legislation. I think that the noble and learned Lord might discover that there was an element of double jeopardy in such a suggestion, which might give rise to constitutional problems. I think that it would also strike a member of the profession as altering the function of the prosecutor. In this country the prosecutor is not like Mr. Vyshinsky; he is not supposed to suggest particular sentences to a court; he is supposed to place the facts before the court and leave the sentence to the court.
Lord Renton: My Lords, could the Criminal Law Revision Committee be invited to consider a recommendation that people convicted of these offences should no longer be allowed to continue in employment which gives them the charge of children and young people?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards teachers, I do not think that that is necessary because the Education Acts provide the Secretary of State for Education with adequate powers to deal with teachers who are convicted of offences of this type. When we come to deal with private employment, I think it would be rather more difficult to do. I believe that it would be wise to leave the Criminal Law Revision Committee to conclude its present investigations and then consider its report when it comes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was suggesting that the courts should also have the power which the Secretary of State already possesses.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at one time I held the position which is now held by my right honourable friend. On the whole, I think that the Secretary of State is the appropriate authority. Some of these offences—as was the case to which the noble Viscount who asked the Question referred—are tried on summary jurisdiction by lay magistrates; others are tried by the Crown Court. I personally think that the employment of teachers is very much a question which ought to be considered administratively rather than judicially; but, of course, it is for Parliament to decide.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether there have been many public complaints recently by members of the judiciary that the maximum penalties prescribed are proving inadequate?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think there have been any by the judiciary in relation to this particular type of offence. It is fair to say, however, that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, at the judges' dinner at the Mansion House, said in general terms, but not referring to any particular class of offence, that there had recently come to his notice a number of cases—I think he said one or two—in which sentences had been markedly too lenient.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, may I revert to the noble and learned Lord's answer to the question I put with regard to appealing the question of sentence? Would he acknowledge that it is not only the country

891
in which Mr. Vyshinsky was a distinguished, or notorious, prosecutor that the prosecution has a right to be heard on the question of sentence? Would he not consider that at least many other civilised countries regard the question of sentence as falling within the province of the prosecution? Would he also not acknowledge that, having regard to the great developments that there have been in the administration of criminal justice in favour of accused persons during the last 100 years, and particularly during the last 30 years, perhaps this question of the Crown's interest in sentence should be looked at afresh?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is exactly the sort of question which would be canvassed if primary legislation in that sense were introduced. I am of course aware that in a great number of countries the duties of a prosecutor are differently defined from the way in which we behave in this country, but on the whole I think that this country is a model to the world, and not vice versa.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord agree that in many debates in this House there has been general agreement that sentences passed by the judiciary in this country, as compared with those in other similar countries, are much too severe?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can only say that for every complaint which comes before me of alleged excessive severity I probably get between 10 and 20 alleging excessive leniency.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to rise and ask a question, but after that the House might perhaps think it appropriate to move on.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is not the real problem the disparity between the various courts in sentencing, and not the question of the maximum sentence? Would the noble and learned Lord not agree that considerable disquiet would be relieved if it were known that there were regular meetings with the judges at which the question of sentencing was considered by way of discussion and some amount of common agreement reached as to the types of offence which society regards as so serious that there should be severer penalties?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I think it is possible to exaggerate the degree of disparity which exists. I think a good deal of the disquiet is due to the particular treatment of individual cases in the way in which some of them are reported, giving a slant one way or the other, and not to the actual facts of the case. I would wish to add a warning against not merely the undesirability but the impossibility of sentencing people from press cuttings.
I would also say to the noble Lord that, as regards his useful suggestion about judges' meetings, we hold a seminar at Roehampton year by year; and, of course, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting in the Court of Appeal
892
(Criminal Division), in fact keeps an eye on the level of sentences in different parts of the country. If a sentence is of excessive severity he incorporates something to that effect in his judgment; but if he considers that, as a whole, the level of sentences is unduly lenient, he will certainly either issue a practice direction or include in one of his judgments some guidelines as to how courts ought to behave.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lord, is the noble and learned Lord aware that—
Noble Lords: No! Next Question!

Bankrupt Companies: Consumers' Prepayments
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the hardship facing those consumers who send money for goods to companies that subsequently go bankrupt; and what action is proposed to deal with this problem.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the difficulties of those who suffer losses in this way and are considering possible means by which the problem might be relieved. However, the vast majority of businesses which accept deposits are honest traders and it would be harmful to their interests to impose wide-ranging restrictions in order to control the minority of potential defaulters.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if we might really get down to brass tacks, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Office of Fair Trading is conducting a detailed study of prepayment problems? If he is aware of that, can he say how long this study will take? Secondly, may I ask him whether he realises that those people who are being given evidence of malpractices in this field feel that the existing law is not being used as it could be to counter these malpractices? Finally, is the insolvency branch of the Department of Trade looking into these malpractices, are these reported to them, and are they prepared to take action on the matter?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Baroness's question is concerned, I am afraid that I am not certain, I may be able to ascertain a date; if I can I shall write to the noble Baroness.
On the second part of the noble Baroness's question, as she will know, these matters—and indeed many others—are covered in discussions and works that are going on in the Department of Trade and Industry on the Cork report. Thirdly, the insolvency department is aware of the problems raised by the noble Baroness. But she and your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Government realise that these consumers may

893
sometimes lose money in the way in which the noble Baroness has described. However, they can protect themselves against this loss in a variety of ways. The noble Baroness and your Lordships will be fascinated to see the leaflet that is available which sets everything out in clear and concise terms as to the steps that consumers should take in the event of the misfortune described by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, but that is not getting us anywhere except in a very long time. We know about the Cork report. Will the Minister say whether there is any chance that some action might be taken soon? Am I not correct in believing that prior to the general election it was the intention of the Department of Trade that some action would be taken to help consumers in this matter? Could he inquire whether the insolvency department in the Department of Trade and Industry is given information about the malpractices that occur and is definitely dealing with them?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the insolvency department is receiving information about malpractices; but it believes that these problems should be dealt with under the entire umbrella of the Cork report as a whole. I will inquire whether there are any other details that I can ascertain for the noble Baroness and I will write to her.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that there is great urgency about this matter? Unfortunately, one of the things that result from the present recession is the fact that many companies go out of business suddenly without warning and people who are dealing with them suddenly find that the companies have heavy debts which they are unable to pay. It is a tremendously urgent matter and unfortunately is one of the consequences of the present recession. I hope that the Government realise that this is something that could be dealt with more swiftly and better, because the problem is getting worse.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Government appreciate the urgency of the problem. I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will appreciate that this entire problem is part of a major jigsaw in insolvency, and that jigsaw covers the Cork report and one or two other things. But I take note of the urgency and the comments of my noble friend and the eternal vigilance of the noble Baroness.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords. the Minister has just referred to the jigsaw of the Cork report and an examination of insolvency. Does he realise that the Government take an extremely long time to solve puzzles and this happens to be one of them? Is he aware that a considerable amount of dust has accumulated on the Cork report which is in the library of the Secretary of State? Will he kindly dust off the report and tell us when we are likely to see action in regard to it?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord is always very flattering to me when he refers to legal matters. I have my copy of the Cork report. I shall forbear from
894
reading to the noble Lord and to your Lordships the fascinating paragraph 1055 that covers much of the ground we have been over this afternoon. The noble Lord and your Lordships will appreciate that this massive report—I stress it is only part of the jigsaw covering the problems raised by the noble Baroness, and others—was a result of five years of comprehensive study of the whole of the law covering insolvency and other problems. But I will bring the concern of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is another element that I would ask him to consider? Many of the bankruptcies that take place are quite genuine in these hard times. People have no desire to defraud or cheat. Sometimes it happens; but there is another element where firms are created to go bankrupt and they work this racket very skilfully. They are aided—lamentably I have to say—by the national press and various magazines. Will the noble Lord be prepared to take on board and consider this element?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, not only have I taken it on board, but the Government and the Central Office of Information also have taken it on board. At a later stage I may discuss this with the noble Lord. I have a valuable little leaflet. If any of your Lordships wish to read it we can make it available in the Library.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I hope that all those people will take on board one simple question. Looking at the complicated jigsaw, may I ask the Minister whether he will look into the matter and answer a Question after the Recess about whether the Government consider it possible that one section might be taken out of the Cork report so that the problems affecting private consumers over insolvency might he dealt with?
Lord Lyell: As of today, my Lords, I could not give the noble Baroness that guarantee; but if the noble Baroness will study Chapter 22 of the Cork report and start at paragraph 1048, I think she will find the answers and, indeed, answers to many other questions germane to the points she has raised this afternoon contained in a sympathetic statement by Mr. Justice Megarry, as he then was. She will find that the Cork report covers that point. It suggests, among other things, that it is extremely difficult to separate the interests of the consumers from other creditors: for instance, small traders who might be equally grievously affected by bankruptcy or by fraudulent practices. If the noble Baroness wishes to put down a Question. I invite her to do so and we shall attempt to answer it.

AIDS: Incidence and Control
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how widespread is the disease AIDS in the United Kingdom and Europe, and what steps are being taken to prevent it spreading in the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, 14 confirmed cases of AIDS have been reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre at Colindale, and a further two cases are under investigation. On the basis of the information available to us there are some 60 cases within other member states of the Council of Europe.
The Medical Research Council has established a working party and co-ordinate research into the disease. The Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre is operating a national surveillance system, which includes making available a summary of information for doctors about the incidence, indentification and methods of control of the disease. Although there is no conclusive evidence that AIDS is transmitted by blood or blood products, the department is considering the publication of a leaflet indicating the circumstances in which blood donations should he avoided.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he tell me whether there is a cure on the way?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, up to the moment it has not proved possible to identify exactly what is causing the disease. Until that has happened, I am afraid I could not say that we can produce a cure.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell me whether any special action is being taken to inform dental and medical practioners of precautions that they should take? I understand that it is quite possible that a carrier could come into a surgery and that the dentist, the doctor or another patient could become infected.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not know the answer concerning dental surgeons specifically, but the mechanisms by which the disease is transmitted, and the causative agent, as I have described to the noble Baroness, are not known. Although promiscuous male homosexual activity and intravenous drug abuse are risk factors, there is no evidence that the disease can be transmitted through non-physical contact.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why we import blood compounds from America; and is there not a fear that this condition can be transmitted through anti-haemophiliac cryo precipitate, which is a blood compound?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not know the answer concerning the chemical to which the noble Baroness referred. I shall find out and let her know. We have to import Factor VIII, which is an agent used in the cure for haemophiliacs. We shall need to continue to do that until we are self-sufficient ourselves.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his earlier reply, but may I ask him whether it is now believed that this disease is transmissible in many more ways than was originally believed? Will the Minister issue instructions to practioners, or ask his department to look into the need to do so?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. I will do that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will be good enough to answer the first part of my supplementary question, which was why we have to import blood compounds from America and why we cannot manufacture our own?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we need to import it because we have not got enough ourselves. We are trying to build up our own stocks. The noble Baroness might like to know that last year the Blood Products Laboratory manufactured 22 million international units of Factor VIII. At the same time, we imported 35 million international units in 1981 at a cost of between £3 million and £4 million.

UNCTAD: Belgrade Meeting
3.31 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain what policy they followed at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Belgrade.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, our policy was to recognise the interdependence of the economies of the world and of the many issues under discussion in Belgrade, and to seek a realistic and constructive outcome which would contribute to strengthening international economic co-operation and world economic recovery.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper asks what was the British Government's policy. I hardly think that the noble Lord's reply constitutes an Answer to that Question. May I ask the noble Lord to put aside his brief for a moment and to take the House into his confidence? Was not this conference a wasteful fiasco for a month? Is it not the case that, on the side of the industrialised nations, Britain, America and West Germany were the main stumbling blocks to an intelligent dialogue with the developing countries? Was that not the sole cause of the fiasco but one of them? May I ask him, in particular, what the British Government representatives did in urging upon the conference the findings of the report of the Commonwealth Group, especially their recommendation that there should be smaller conferences on single issues?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as policy is concerned, I think, if I may say so, that for the Government to say that we recognise the interdependence of the economies of the world—which is a great deal more than just a bland statement of the obvious: it is something which is extraordinarily difficult to achieve, and if only we could do so it would overcome so many problems of the world—and to say that we seek a realistic and constructive outcome at Belgrade, is a reasonable Answer to the noble Lord's Question. So

897
far as concerns the charge of the noble Lord that it was a wasteful fiasco, resolutions were passed on trade matters, on commodity matters and on international finance matters. I think it is fair to say that the outcome of the conference, with some 20 resolutions adopted, compared favourably with previous sessions of the conference.
Thirdly, I refute the noble Lord's charge that the developed European countries were in some way responsible for what was not achieved at Belgrade. If the noble Lord wishes, I will back that up with evidence. Finally, it gives me pleasure to be able to agree with the noble Lord on just one point. Yes, there are problems with the way in which UNCTAD is organised. Its potential is not fully realised because of problems inherent in its methods of operation, and Her Majesty's Government intend to continue to urge consideration of improvements before the next conference.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Despite what he has said, would he not agree that this conference, like the eight conferences which have preceded it, has done practically nothing to deal with the problem of the 30 million people in the developing countries who die unnecessarily? Was there a single decision by this conference which would save one life? Is it not the case that the conference rejected the Belgrade Declaration on World Economy? Is it not the case that even with the weak, compromise statement (from which the USA dissociated itself) the United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan made reservations? What has this conference done to solve the problem?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think I must ask House to wait. There will be a White Paper issued which will give an account of the conference. The noble Lord asked the Government whether there was one resolution which would have saved one life anywhere in the world. The noble Lord knows very well indeed, from his interest and his experience, that many of the difficulties in the world are in countries which rely upon commodities for their trade. I would point out to the noble Lord that, out of the four major resolutions on commodities which were passed at Belgrade, one urged countries to ratify the common fund to provide finance for buffer stocks. We have already ratified the common fund, and we were trying to persuade other countries to do likewise.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is it not the case that this conference failed to ratify the common fund for commodity prices, about which agreement was nearly reached a year ago?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, yes.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord asking us to believe that the success of a conference is to be judged by the number of resolutions passed? Would he answer my supplementary question concerning the Commonwealth report, which I understand the British Government urged on the conference but not strongly enough to have it accepted? When he says that the major issue at the conference was a recognition of the interdependence of
898
the economies of the world have the British Government now become convinced of that about which some of us have been trying to convince them for the last four years—that the recovery of the industrialised world depends as strongly on increased purchasing power in the developing world as vice versa?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, certainly there is no question of suggesting to the House that the success of a conference is to be judged by the number of resolutions passed. I think the thing to do, if I may say so, is to wait until the White Paper is issued. But it is important that I should rectify one misconception on the part of the noble Lord. The United Kingdom tried (it is true without success) to gain support for proposals to improve the negotiating process made recently in the Commonwealth report entitled The North-South dialogue: Making it Work.It was not a question of not pressing hard enough. We ran out of time, and we were extremely sorry that this was so.

EC Fishery Ministers: Brussels Meeting
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Council of Fishery Ministers, 11th–12th July.
The Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, subject to progress of business, it is hoped that the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Wednesday, 27th July. I think I should point out to your Lordships—because to a certain extent it is a departure from usual practice—that the House will sit at 2.30 p.m. on that day. I hope to be able to make a further announcement next week on the date when the House will resume after the Summer Recess.

Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the service of improvement notices and prohibition notices in connection with statutory provisions relating to the safety of ships and hovercraft and other matters; to make further provision with respect to the ascertainment of ships' tonnages for the purposes of Section 503 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and Section 4 of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilivorth.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

County of Lancashire Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a third time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it was I who moved the Instruction to the Select Committee on the opposed provisions of this Bill on 15th March last year. It is on that Instruction that the Select Committee has produced the Special Report which is now before the House. In view of that, I think it is suitable for me to express grateful thanks to the Select Committee for having gone so carefully into this tedious affair of the Burnley dogs. In particular, I think one must mourn the passing of Lord Hinton of Bankside, who was the Chairman of the Select Committee. For 10 days the Select Committee listened to counsel and petitioners on these clauses in the County of Lancashire Bill related expressly to the restrictions in the borough of Burnley upon the use of parks for the walking of dogs. I draw the attention of the House particularly to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Special Report.
I am not going to dwell upon the unhappy saga of this affair that has bedevilled community relations in Burnley over the past six years; but I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is now over 12 months since the compromise embodied in the report of the Select Committee was reached upstairs. In June 1982 the promoters and the petitioners, in front of the Select Committee, reached a compromise agreement on certain parks which were to remain closed and others which were to be open.
This Bill now goes to another place and the prospects appear to be that the Bill will not complete its way through Parliament for quite some time to come. Certainly it will not begin on its way there until after the Summer Recess, so here we have the settlement of a dispute between the borough council and a considerable section of the community of Burnley, which is now the basis of a compromise, continuing to be unresolved. Surely, when this House exercises its authority as a conciliatory body on private Bills, something can be done to offset the apparently unavoidable delays which private Bills encounter in going through Parliament. It is a good job these private Bills are carried forward from one Session and from one Parliament to another, otherwise they would never get through. The prospects of this Bill getting through in the months to come are not very favourable.
What do we expect the citizens to do? They have compromised themselves on this and the local authority have done the same. Why cannot the settlement that was reached over a year ago be brought into operation? What is stopping it? I know that to do it means anticipating the provisions of this Special Report which, if carried by the House, would alter the Bill; but I should have thought that all was now set for a peaceful and harmonious transfer of the arrangements which caused so much trouble in Burnley to the
900
new régime of reconciliation there. Although it may not be the duty of this House to deal with the consequences of its own slow and cumbersome procedures, it may be that a Minister of the Home Office could take notice of the fact that we have this stalemate position in Burnley at the present time. Surely the order that caused all the trouble could be amended by agreement between the local authority and the Home Office, and so release this land, as agreed upon over a year ago, for the benefit of the wider community.
Therefore I appeal to whomever it may concern who will listen to this, either in Burnley or in the Home Office, or both, because the trouble here is the unenlightened way in which statutory notices are published by local authorities on the instructions of the Home Office. That is where the trouble started: nobody knew what it was all about until the order came into operation. So I do believe that it is somebody's duty to ensure that this business is now moved forward, and I make this very strong appeal to those concerned this afternoon.
When all this was going on before the Committee upstairs—the hours and hours that this Select Committee spent on a dispute which should never have come here at all—I was divided between a feeling of shame for community relations in Burnley and a feeling of pride in the patience of noble Lords, Members of this House, who sat and listened day after day for 10 solid days to what was said about the dispute in Burnley. It is, I suppose, a triumph for the democratic parliamentary procedure but—my goodness!—what a reflection upon the wisdom and sagacity of Lancastrians. If that is what they do, give me Yorkshire every time.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for those remarks which were full of his usual pithy sentiments. I will not enter into the controversy between Yorkshire and Lancashire; but, seriously, I am grateful to him for the thanks that he has offered to the Select Committee. Many of your Lordships give up your time on these Select Committees—I do not know how we would manage if you did not—and I am very grateful to the members of this particular Committee.
I am very pleased that the noble Lord mentioned the sad death of the Chairman of the Committee, Lord Hinton of Bankside, because although he was obviously very distinguished in his own life as an engineer, he was always ready to give up time to take the chair of Select Committees in this House, and we shall certainly miss him.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, as to the position on the compromise that has been reached, I believe it really applies to Scott Park, which is the one area where the Committee agreed that dogs should in future be allowed. Obviously the Committee themselves accepted that this would not take place until the Bill became law: this appears in paragraph 7 of their report—
"that the byelaw banning dogs from Scott Park would he revoked as soon as the Bill is enacted,".

901
On the other hand, I see the force of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby: why do they not act immediately and allow the dogs into Scott Park now or get some amendment of the present byelaw? If I may be allowed to draw the attention of the local council to what has been said, I hope that will go some way towards satisfying the noble Lord's point.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1983
3.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1983 laid before the House on 10th May be approved. The draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which passed no comments thereon. The purpose of this draft order and the background to it will be familiar to those of your Lordships who have attended these debates in previous years. The Pool Competitions Act came into force on 27th July 1971 and set up a system of licensing and control, administered by the Gaming Board of the so-called charitable and sporting pools. These are competitions for prizes, depending on sporting events (essentially football matches) and run for the financial benefit of organisations supporting charities and athletics or games.
The Act was introduced following a judgment by this House in 1970 that a particular competition of this kind did not constitute lawful pool betting, as the promoters had supposed, but was, in fact, an unlawful lottery, because prizes were not in the main for making forecasts—an essential feature of lawful pool betting—but for holding or selecting numbers which happened to be lucky in a particular week.
The effect of this judgment on the charitable and sporting organisations supported by these competitions, such as the Spastics Society and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, could have been severe. They derive substantial income from this source. The Pool Competitions Act 1971 was therefore introduced as a temporary measure to safeguard the interests of the charities and sporting clubs concerned. It did not permit new schemes to be launched. There were at the time 18 schemes, but the number has since diminished to six.
The Act was to have effect for five years, but under Section 8 of the Act there is provision for its extension by order for up to a year at a time. The Act has, in fact, been extended annually since 1976. Last year, the then Home Secretary announced his intention to lay further annual orders as necessary during the lifetime of that Parliament. A discussion document on the future of pool competitions had been sent to relevant organisations and a copy was also placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. Since then, the comments on the discussion document have been considered and officials have had further meetings with representatives of the promoters and beneficiaries under the Act.
902
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that our consideration of this whole issue posed a substantial dilemma—the same dilemma that has faced all Governments since the inception of the Act. There has been criticism during these debates in previous years; sometimes directed at the lack of a permanent solution, sometimes at aspects of the schemes themselves. The difficulties posed by this seemingly small issue are, on closer examination, not insignificant.
Some might think that the Act should be allowed to lapse; that it was intended as a temporary measure; that it created a privileged position for those who benefit by and operate under it and that this anomaly should now be removed. They would say that there is no evidence of any demand to make such competitions more widely available and point to the clear and unambiguous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Gambling that the Act should be allowed to lapse. This course would result in some saving in Gaming Board expenditure. It would also mean an end to these annual debates in this House and in another place.
There certainly is some logic in this suggestion, but against that we must consider the sums which various charities would stand to lose. To take the same two examples, in 1982–83 the Spastics Society derived £553,000 from these competitions; and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund some £600,000. It would be a rash act to deprive such deserving causes of these substantial sums.
As an alternative to letting it lapse, others might argue for some form of permanent legislation, whether confined to the existing schemes or open to all. This would also avoid the need for annual renewals and annual debates and remove uncertainty about the longer term. They would point to the deserving causes which benefit. Such legislation could either make the existing Act permanent or improve on it.
If it were simply a case of making the 1971 Act permanent, confined as it is to the existing schemes, it would involve no additional work once the amending legislation was passed and would not result in any wider expansion of the competitions. On the other hand, to preserve and make permanent what is patently an anomaly would also have disadvantages. If it was confined to the existing schemes, it would be discriminatory and might be thought unacceptable to your Lordships. If the new legislation were, on the contrary, to open the schemes up to all, this would not be discriminatory, whether it was done on the basis of existing controls or better. This also would avoid the need for annual renewals and annual debates. It would, however, create a new gambling outlet for which there is no demand.
I should stress that the Gaming Board, who would have to monitor and control the competitions, are opposed to their becoming more widely available even with tighter controls. Such a course would have financial and manpower implications for the board and perhaps for the Home Office as well. Stricter limits on such aspects as prizes or expenses could affect the viability of some existing schemes and, paradoxically, reduce the sums paid to the beneficiary. For all these reasons we have decided that permanent legislation is not a sensible option.

903
We have also considered whether these competitions could fit within the framework of the lotteries legislation. Some of the organisations operating under the Act run lotteries as well, but these are not as profitable as pool competitions. The prize limits for lotteries are considerably lower than the level of prizes available in pool competitions, and I do not think we should distort lotteries legislation simply to accommodate pool competitions. In any case, although the competitions are in essence lotteries, they nevertheless have characteristics of their own. I am advised that, in consequence, they would probably have to be dealt with as a distinct gambling activity in any permanent legislation.
Faced with this dilemma, the Government have decided that, subject to the draft order before the House being approved, further annual orders will be laid as necessary during the lifetime of this Parliament. This option has the support of the promoters and beneficiaries under the Act. They have come to accept that the prospect of permanent legislation with minimal changes to the 1971 Act is remote. In addition, by proceeding in this way we ensure that no new gambling outlet is created. Parliament will have the opportunity to review the position annually and to end these competitions when it wants to.
It might be said that this decision is based on mere expediency. I would rather call it pragmatism and remind the House that it was on pragmatic grounds that the Act was originally introduced. I doubt whether your Lordships would wish, any more than we do, either to deprive deserving causes of significant sums of money at a stroke or to perpetuate an anomaly for which there is no wider demand.
In presenting our intentions to the House, I should also emphasise that we do not see a long-term future for these competitions. The number of schemes has declined to six since the Act was passed and may well decline still further over the next few years. Despite the large sums that beneficiaries derive from these competitions, the amounts are declining as a proportion of their total income, and this trend seems likely to continue. There will come a point when we no longer feel justified in laying further renewal orders before the House. I would therefore beg those who benefit from the Act to use the opportunity provided by this statement of our intention to reduce still further their dependence on income from these competitions and to find and develop other ways of raising revenue. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be indebted, as usual, to the noble Lord the Minister for the clarity that he always employs when he explains even such difficult problems as lie in regard to an order such as this. I do not think that one commends oneself to the affection of the House on a hot afternoon like this, if one repeats what has already been heard and does not add a useful comment by doing so. So I merely intend to say this on behalf of my noble friends.
There is no doubt that allowing the Act to lapse would, indeed, harm very deserving charities. It is
904
equally true that having permanent legislation for the reasons that were advanced by the noble Lord the Minister would not be a correct solution. For my part, I can see no good alternative to the continuance order procedure being invoked and the matter coming before your Lordships year by year. It is not a tidy way of doing things and your Lordships may not like it for that reason. But your Lordships' hearts are so warm that, knowing that deserving charities are benefiting year by year when you continue the order so long as it is necessary, will. I have no doubt, compensate your Lordships for an untidy procedure. In those circumstances, we support the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.59 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House was good enough to give a Second Reading on 9th May to a similar Bill which I introduced then. But, as with all uncompleted Public Bills including Private Members' Bills, it died on the dissolution of that Parliament. The Government, in the form of the Home Office and the Department of Trade, gave support to the Bill then and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was good enough to say that:
"the Bill was a modest Bill but one which could serve a useful purpose. It would open up a potential export market for some sections of the British printing industry". [Official Report,9/5/83: col. 377.]
He also said that if the Bill were to be reintroduced later in the summer the Government would continue to support the principle.
This Bill is to correct an anomaly identified in paragraph 12.201 of the final report of the Royal Commission on Gambling in 1978. The anomaly is prejudicing the export of material by certain firms in our domestic printing industry which specialise in the production of tickets for lotteries conducted wholly abroad.
There can be no justification for United Kingdom legislation penalising our export industry. This is not merely a theoretical fetter on export effort and potential but can be illustrated by one undertaking's performance. Since 1973, its export turnover, which recently rose to 41 per cent. of the whole, has totalled £10,783,000, and in 1981 it was £2,745,000 to 22 overseas countries, giving employment to 300 people. These achievements have been secured in the face of the strongest overseas competition and despite the effects of the recession.
The anomaly arises in Section 2(1)(a) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 and can be traced back through Section 42(1)(a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to the Lotteries Act of 1823, when, no doubt, exports were of much less consequence than they are today. The final report of the Royal Commission in 1978 could hardly have put the case for clearing the anomaly more forcefully and succinctly. In paragraph 12.200 it said:
"We received formal evidence from Kenrick and Jefferson, an old-established firm specialising in security printing, complaining that Section 42(1)(a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963"—

905
which has become, as I have said, Section 2(1)(a) of the 1976 Act—
"as at present Interpreted, had prevented them from exporting lottery tickets. They said in their evidence: 'Being an ethical house we obey the law. At the same time we know that overseas lottery tickets arc printed in the United Kingdom, and subsequently exported'. Far from suggesting that the offenders be made to toe the line, it is our contention that the law should be changed in order that others may legally participate in this trade".
In the following paragraph the commission said:
"Our terms of reference are concerned with gambling in Britain, not with unnecessary hindrance to Britain's export trade. Nevertheless, it does seem absurd that a law which has remained unchanged since 1823 should he able to have this effect. We hope that the hindrance referred to by Kenrick and Jefferson will be quickly removed".
Moreover, the reality of the threat to the printing undertakings of this country is shown by the representations made by their overseas printing competitors to our industry's potential customers abroad, alleging that those undertakings are in breach of United Kingdom law in making printed lottery supplies. A letter dated 23rd June 1982, addressed to the Finnish Embassy commercial department from the European representative of an American printing company, actually threatened that if the British printing company got the order they, an American company, would initiate a prosecution in this country against them. On the last occasion I said I thought this was an impertinence. Whatever it is, I am sure it is a situation which ought not to be allowed to continue. There is also no virtue in our police authorities being required to investigate complaints of this nature—as, indeed, has occurred.
It can he added that the present anomaly in Section 2 of the Lotteries and Amusements Acts 1976 is contrary to the Treaty of Rome as—and I quote from the treaty—
"disguised restriction on trade between Member States".
Article 36 of the treaty says:
"The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property."
This is the point. It says:
"Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States".
The terms of the Bill have been limited strictly to curing the acknowledged anomaly. The source of the problem is in the opening words of Section 2(1):
"Subject to the provisions of this section, every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted either in Great Britain or elsewhere"—
"or elsewhere" are the two offending words—
"shall he guilty of an offence".
Put shortly, the new subsection (2A) proposed in the Bill removes the offences of printing and selling material to the promoters of any lottery conducted wholly outside Great Britain. It does not, for example, tamper with the offence of distributing in Great Britain tickets or chances in a lottery promoted outside Great Britain, such as the Irish Hospitals Sweepstake, for which tickets cannot be sold here.
It has been made clear that the Department of Industry and the Home Office are fully in sympathy
906
with the modest purpose of the Bill, and the drafting of the Bill has been undertaken in consultation with their officials. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked that a technical amendment should be made at the Committee stage. I have incorporated that amendment in the new printing of the Bill.
What is plain is that, for the safeguard of the export potential of this sector of our printing industry, this alteration of the law is urgently needed. It should not await the uncertainty of the timetable for any future Government measure in this field. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Irving of Dartford.)

EC Fishery Ministers: Brussels Meeting
4.7 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting in Brussels on 11th and 12th July.
"Together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right honourable friend the Minister of State in my department, I represented the United Kingdom.
"After further lengthy discussions the council could not reach agreement on the package of proposals for total allowable catches, quotas, associated conservation provisions and structural implementing measures which were under consideration. Nor was it possible, because one member state invoked its vital national interest, to reach agreement on interim measures which would have permitted fishermen from member states and from Norway to continue fishing for North Sea herring.
"However, the principal problem was on North Sea herring and it was agreed that a commission group of experts should be asked to carry out an urgent study of the allocation of quotas for this stock. This is a technical study and it is clearly established that the group will be concerned only with the application of the criteria laid down in the council declaration of 30th May 1980. The work will he completed in time to report to the council at its next meeting, now scheduled for 25th and 26th July. In the meantime, fishing for herring in the North Sea by those member states who have exhausted their interim quotas and by Norway will cease.
"I took the opportunity to press the commission on the need for more rapid implementation of the arrangements for enforcement. I am glad to say that the commission undertook to have at least some of their inspectors in post by the end of September and to have logbooks in operation before 1st November. These will he significant steps towards more effective control to which I attach considerable importance".
That, my Lords, concludes my right honourable friend's statement.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which has been made in the other place. I shall put to him one or two questions as briefly as I can. I believe that they cover the main aspects of concern. Is the Minister aware that the House will view with some concern the breakdown of the arrangements announced as recently, as 13 days ago? Does he recall that on 1st July the Minister said that the common fisheries policy as a whole laid the ground for a fisheries policy for the next 20 years and that he was optimistic? That was despite the arrangements announced as recently as January.
On inspection, which is a most important point, does the noble Lord not agree that all the arrangements within the EEC member states are ineffective if there is inadequate policing by EEC members and by the United Kingdom? As the noble Lord knows, the United Kingdom has a very special interest because the fish are in what we still term as "our" 200-mile limit. What special action will the Ministry's fisheries protection vessels be taking—including the use of Nimrods? I noted in the newspaper today that Nimrods may not be used because they cannot fly low enough, although that statement is not borne out by my own experience of Nimrods when I had responsibilities for fishing.
With regard to trans-shipping, is the noble Lord able to say what checks are made in respect of the trans-shipping of fish to third country vessels, and what inspection is made of quota catches, whether they are trans-shipped or landed by member states? With regard to Scotland and herring—a most important aspect—is the Minister aware of the deep concern felt by our fishing industry as to its uncertain future and as to the need to reach an agreement to protect the industry's interests, especially off the West Coast of Scotland and in northern and central parts of the North Sea? Is the noble Lord able to say what consultation has taken place with the industry?
When it comes to the general fisheries policy, it is quite apparent that although the Statement deals with matters of immediate concern—such as herring—the Minister has admitted, in the very first paragraph of the Statement, that there has been no agreement with member states on a number of important aspects of the CFP. Can the noble Lord say what hopes he has in that direction?
Finally, I note from the last paragraph of the Statement it is suggested that no action may be taken on enforcement until, possibly, the end of September or from the 1st November—this is rather a long period at this troubled time, when every one of the member states is pressing for a share in the allocation. Will the Minister also bear in mind that, as two-thirds of the fish in EEC waters are within our 200-mile limit, we have a very special interest in the future of our industry, and that this needs to be borne in mind in any settlements which are arrived at?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement—which reveals what one can only call a frightful mess. 1 should first like to ask the noble Lord
908
if he does not agree that we really must achieve majority voting when it comes to these vital questions. I do not know whether this is more of a reluctant compromise, but it is high time that we had majority voting or nearly unanimous voting. For just one country to upset the whole apple cart continually is not good enough if we are ever going to get anywhere; I assume that the one nation is Denmark.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the arrangements for the control of industrial fishing are satisfactory, because my information from the trade is that one really cannot control matters if one does not know what they are sucking up. The latest demand to separate the herring indicates the kind of catches that they make, 'to the immense detriment of the herring in the North Sea. As the North Sea has been over-fished for years—and we had a ban on it for a great many years but have now opened it again—can the noble Lord tell us whether the scientists are entirely sure that the quota was justified and whether they will be consulted by the commission of experts who are to fix the quotas in trying to allocate the quotas for agreement on 25th and 26th July?
Finally, is it not extraordinary that we set off to fish for this immensely scarce resource, which has been in great trouble, and yet there are no enforcement measures in being to enforce? Is there any truth in the newspaper reports that the Dutch are simply filling up their holds and proceeding home without regard to any quota whatsoever? It appears that the Minister's concern over enforcement is a little late, and I hope that he will be able to push the point very hard at the next meeting of the council.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bishopston and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for what they have said—albeit not without criticism—about that which occurred at the Fisheries Council on 11th and 12th July. The first point I would make in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, is that the problem over herring, on which the meeting of three days ago foundered, does not mean that the common fisheries policy has foundered. It was always recognised that the setting of the North Sea herring quotas would be very difficult. Although that has proved to be the case, the other major advances, made on such matters as quotas other than for herring, access, technical conservation measures and structural assistance to the industry from the commission, are still valid and very much in place.
I agree with both noble Lords that an adequate inspection policy is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked a specific question about what we are doing. The noble Lord will know very well from his own ministerial experience that the protection services are divided into five equal parts. All are vigilant at the present time so far as the weather allows them to be—and the noble Lord himself made the point about the restrictions on flying that there are from time to time. All I would say on the question of enforcement is that we attach importance to the undertaking that was given in response to my right honourable friend's initiative at the council about getting on with the setting up of the inspectorates, to be in place by the end of September.

909
If the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, will forgive me, I really must write to him with regard to the point he raised about trans-shipment, because I do not have an answer to that. But on consultation with the industry, perhaps I might return to the first point I made: that, of course, the consultation arrangements between my right honourable friend and the industry are, I hope, in as good working order as ever. I assure the noble Lord that we are not talking about a different situation now, so far as general quotas are concerned. We are talking about being unable to reach an agreement on the total yearly quota for herring at the present time. Without that, it was not possible to achieve an agreement on the whole package comprising all the other parts of the common fisheries policy. The Government hope very much that when the council re-assembles on 25th and 26th July these matters will be sorted out.
May I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that I understand absolutely why he made the point about majority voting; but in case there is any misunderstanding, my understanding is that quotas are decided under Article 43 of the treaty—and that means by majority voting. Nonetheless, the Luxembourg Compromise was on this occasion invoked by Denmark. Her Majesty's Government have made their position clear on the Luxembourg Compromise, and that remains unchanged.
The noble Lord also asked me about the view of scientists. It seems to me that this is a matter which should be discussed within the council, and for evidence to be given by the commission to the council. The right thing for me to do on that point is to draw to the attention of my right honourable friend that which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, so that my right honourable friend will have his comments in mind when he travels to Brussels once again in 10 days' time.
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place, may I ask whether he is aware that although this may deal only with herring, it had been a bitter blow to the fishing industry, which has such high hopes of the general EEC agreement made only a few months ago? If the Danes can get away with herring, then before long it will be another type of fish—and this is the fear of the trawlermen around our coasts.
Can my noble friend say what representations have been made either through the EEC or directly to the Danish Government? They, according to reports, have not only over-fished their own quota but have taken so many herring that they have the entire quota for all the EEC countries. It really is quite intolerable that this should have been allowed to go on when we have gone to such lengths to try to conserve herring. Perhaps if the Government do not feel able to go through the long and bureaucratic processes of the EEC they might take note of a trawlerman's comment, "I have told my wife that I will divorce her if she buys any more Danish bacon". If we stopped buying Danish bacon they would soon stop taking our herrings.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think it is important for me to make the point to my noble friend that those
910
member states which have exhausted their interim quotas have had to stop fishing, and other member states will have to stop fishing as their interim quotas become exhausted. The daily catches reports are published; and all your Lordships will have seen, as I have, the reports in the newspapers today, which make it sound as if there is not very much moving in the North Sea so far as herring fishing is concerned. This again underlines the importance of the undertaking which my right honourable friend the Minister managed to secure at the council so far as concerns getting the inspectorates properly set up immediately. So far as my noble friend's general point is concerned, as to what is to be done, we really must wait for another 10 days until the 25th and 26th July; certainly the United Kingdom will be doing its very best to see that the whole package is agreed on that occasion.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, will my noble friend thank his right honourable and honourable friends for the efforts they have so far successfully made? Will he ask them to bear in mind that it is not only the lack of herring which most of us feel rather strongly about, but also the lack of a great deal of employment opportunities which have been created in Aberdeen, Peterhead and Fraserburgh to process the herring and give employment and pleasure to the people who work and to people who eat the herring? Would my noble friend ask his right honourable and honourable friends to do everything they can within reason to frustrate the Danes, who have already tried to ruin salmon fishing?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend and my honourable friend, who have both been attending the council, to the words of my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas; and also to the importance which, he quite rightly reminds the Government, attaches to this matter so far as employment is concerned.

Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
4.24 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, all of us will want to pay a tribute to the pertinacity and indeed the expert speed with which my noble friend has operated, because on 9th May this year (at col. 377 of Hansard) he concluded the proceedings on the Second Reading of this Bill in that Session with the words:
"I cannot hope that the Government might find time for the Bill before the end of this Parliament, but I will certainly be back with it in the next Parliament".
And here he is moving this Bill for which he has taken responsibility.
The issue is a very simple one but a very real one, certainly for printers in the United Kingdom. It is this: whereas lotteries are controlled in this country when they are run in this country, and they are controlled by legislation, and whereas foreign lotteries not within the control of this country are forbidden to operate in this country, we have by some mismanagement of legislation procured a position where printers in this country cannot without breaching the law—indeed, without committing a criminal offence—print lottery

911
tickets or advertisements for lotteries which are run abroad.
It is interesting to see how this sort of thing can occur and go on for a long period of time. My noble friend indicated that the source of the trouble was an Act of 1823. It so happens that there was an Act in 1976, and your Lordships might have thought that the matter would have been raised then. But the 1976 Act was a consolidation Act, and, as your Lordships will know, consolidation means consolidating what is there and not amending what is there. There was an Act previous to that, in 1975, but that dealt purely and specifically with the instruction of local authorities in the management of lotteries, so that was not a suitable Bill to deal with this. Before that there was an Act in 1963, and that, too, was a consolidation Act. so that was not a medium for putting right this wrong, either.
But I should not like your Lordships to think that in the past we have been so unintelligent or so lacking in initiative as not at least to raise this problem in the 20th century. It was in fact raised in 1934, on a Bill which dealt with lotteries and gaming. by none other than the Duke of Atholl. On that occasion, on 31st May 1934 (at col. 719 of Hansard), the Duke of Atholl raised the matter on a Bill which dealt with these matters and said:
"Supposing there was a sweepstake in some foreign country: there is no reason why our printers should not print the tickets so long as they are honest people and it is not against the law in this country. I am not quite certain whether it is covered in a later Amendment I am going to press.".
The Marquess of Londonderry was in charge of that Bill for the Government, and he was completely put off by a noble Lord who had the title of Viscount Bertie of Thame. He interrupted his line of thought by an entirely different question which your Lordships may not think was in the slightest degree relevant. He said:
"May I ask the noble Marquess whether foreign premium bonds which might be printed in this country for foreign Governments would not come under this Bill?"
That seems to have put the Marquess of Londonderry completely off of his stride, because he said that he would make inquiries into both matters.
I have tried to do some research, but no answers to those inquiries seem to have emerged in 1934. So, as I ventured to say on a previous occasion, that is a lesson for all of us in your Lordships' House: when you ask a Minister a question, it is rather necessary, especially when he says he is going to look into it, and especially so when that occurs on Committee or Report stage, to bear in mind that that may only be an excuse for seeing that your question is never in fact answered or your amendment never dealt with. That was the lot of the Duke of Atholl when he raised this matter in 1934. Here we are, 50 years later, trying to put right what, if only his question had been answered then, might have been dealt with on that occasion.
There is no doubt that it is right that this Bill should receive a Second Reading. I do not think I need add anything to the remarks of my noble friend to persuade your Lordships to vote for the Second Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, on introducing this Bill,
912
and, on grounds similar to those already adduced, I am glad to inform the House that the Government support both its purpose and its content.
When the noble Lord introduced a similar Bill last Session my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said that the Government supported the Bill in principle but that there were some amendments they would wish to see made. The noble Lord pronounced himself willing to accept these and they are incorporated in the Bill now before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has been kind enough to proffer his thanks for the assistance he received. I should emphasise that the amendments do not alter the purpose of the Bill.
There is little new I can say about the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, has told your Lordships, its purpose is to remove a restriction in the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 to enable printers in Great Britain to print and supply lottery tickets and associated lottery material such as advertisements for use in the promotion of a lottery wholly outside Great Britain. It is, at present, an offence under the 1976 Act to print any ticket for use in a lottery promoted, or proposed to be promoted, except as provided for in that Act. Lotteries promoted outside Great Britain are, as provided by the Act, unlawful. This is not a new restriction but is one that has existed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, for many years.
The restriction on the export of lottery tickets no doubt made sense when such export was perhaps the first stage before re-importing the tickets to this country as spurious foreign lottery tickets. However, such a restriction no longer seems appropriate when many countries run large national lotteries of their own; lotteries, moreover, which require specialised printing of a kind which British companies can provide.
The existing legislation was never intended to prevent or restrict legitimate commercial export activities; indeed, we are anxious that it should not. But it is important that any relaxation in the law, such as that proposed in this Bill, should not undermine the controls which protect the public. We therefore had to be satisfied that there were adequate safeguards to ensure that tickets for foreign lotteries could not be distributed in Great Britain or simply exported and then imported. That has been achieved. We have consulted the Gaming Board, which has no objection to the proposals in the Bill.
Although this may appear to be a modest Bill it is one which nevertheless could serve a most useful purpose by opening up a potential export market for some sectors of the British printing industry. That can only be good.
I leave it to the heir of the Duke of Atholl, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon referred, to convey any necessary thanks to him for his comments. I conclude by again congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, for introducing the Bill, and I wish it a safe passage through your Lordships' House and through another place.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his support of the Bill and for the felicitous terms in which he has given that

913
support. Like him, I hope that the Bill will have a safe passage through this House and through another place.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
4.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield)The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved. The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The purpose of the draft order is to authorise the issue of £1,483 million out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland and to appropriate this sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. Noble Lords will recall that sums on account amounting to £1,139 million have already been appropriated for 1983–84 by virtue of the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was approved by your Lordships' House on 14th March. The House is now being asked to approve this further sum of £1,483 million, which represents the balance of the 1983–84 Main Estimates for Northern Ireland departments and brings the total Main Estimates provision for the year, therefore, to £2,622 million.
The Main Estimates represent the detailed spending plans of Northern Ireland departments for this financial year. These plans were set out in broad outline in the Northern Ireland section of the Government's Public Expenditure White Paper which was published in February and in the statements of 14th December 1982 and 1st February this year by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Detailed information can be found in the Estimates volumes themselves, copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. Noble Lords will note that the information contained in this year's Main Estimates has been expanded in order to give more informative details of the services being provided.
Noble Lords have indicated in the past that these debates could and should give an opportunity to take a broad view of Northern Ireland's expenditure plans and some of the policies underlying the plans. First, on the broader front, I am sure that your Lordships are well aware that the Government's overall priority in Northern Ireland has been, and remains, the maintenance of law and order. However, it is expenditure on economic, social and environmental programmes in Northern Ireland with which we are concerned in the draft order before us. In national terms, policies are designed to provide a sound basis on which to generate economic improvement and sustained growth, and Northern Ireland must operate within this national strategy. Within Northern Ireland we are continuing to give priority within these programmes to measures designed to promote viable long-term new jobs and to
914
maintain existing ones. In the social and environmental fields we have selected housing as the third area of priority in Northern Ireland services. I will, of course, say more about our efforts in these areas.
First, let me turn to agriculture, which is the largest single industry in Northern Ireland. Expenditure on fisheries and forestry is covered in Class I of the Northern Ireland Estimates, and total provision for this year amounts to some £63 million, covering a whole range of agricultural services—education, research and development, drainage, fisheries, forestry and support to the agricultural industry.
I should make it clear to your Lordships' House that the necessary provision for the special measures amounting to £12 million of aid to the industry announced by my honourable friend the Minister of State in January last is not contained in the Estimates now before us but will be taken in Supplementary Estimates. Pending approval of Supplementary Estimates, expenditure on these measures will be met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund.
Trade, industry and employment services are covered by Class II of the Estimates, which, of course, brings us to the related problem of unemployment, which we must face and which will undoubtedly be discussed here this afternoon. It is right that we should do so. After law and order, unemployment is the major problem of our time, and has particularly been so in Northern Ireland.
In our efforts to encourage investment in the Province, we have established levels of incentives and support for industry which are unrivalled in the rest of the United Kingdom. Details of the various incentives available and the amounts provided for each are to be found under Votes 1, 2 and 3 of Class II in the Estimates.
In March of this year the Government introduced a series of new measures which strengthened the package of incentives even further. We introduced a tax incentive; we abolished the rates on industrial property; and we introduced new schemes to encourage improved efficiency in local industry. This constitutes a carefully balanced package which we believe represents an excellent basis for encouraging future investment.
Inevitably it will take some time before these new measures begin to bear fruit in the form of new investment and new jobs. In the meantime, the Industrial Development Board will continue its efforts to promote new jobs in the Province. Noble Lords will be aware of the IDB's strategy document, which was published earlier in the year and which sets out its short-term objectives and targets. The board is energetically pursuing those objectives and building up its contacts with industry at home and abroad. Special emphasis is being given to encouraging local companies to improve the design and marketing of their products: in this context, the IDB has mounted a series of seminars designed to bring together local companies and potential buyers.
On the small firms front I would mention the work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Since its formation in 1971. LEDU has, against a difficult economic and political climate, promoted over 15,500

915
jobs in the Province. I have already visited the unit and met its senior executives. I may say that I found their commitment and efficiency most impressive. The unit last year formulated a strategy for the next three years which, through the introduction of innovative incentives and more aggressive marketing, aims to increase its job promotion potential. Indeed, the implementation of this strategy has already seen, in the last financial year, the promotion of some 2,550 jobs. This represents the highest number of job promotions achieved in any year since the unit came into existence, and it is from this platform that I hope to see LEDU achieve even more commendable figures in the current and subsequent years.
Noble Lords should be aware that these Estimates contain only a token provision for support to Harland and Wolff. Because of very difficult market conditions and uncertainty over future orders, Ministers have not yet taken decisions on Harland and Wolff's funding requirement for the full year. In the meantime the company is being funded on an interim basis. We hope to decide within the next few weeks on total funding for the year, and the House will be advised of the outcome as soon as possible. A Supplementary Estimate will follow in due course.
While we must continue to give priority to the development of permanent viable jobs in the private enterprise sector, the Government recognise the need for shorter-term measures to help counter unemployment. In Class II Vote 5—functioning of the labour market—some £100 million is sought to cover the whole range of employment and training services provided. Within this range of services which exist with this objective, I should like to refer particularly to the Action for Community Employment Scheme, or ACE as it is more commonly known. This offers substantial financial aid to sponsors who undertake either a full-time or part-time basis—people who have been unemployed for a year or more. The help offered is a 90 per cent. subsidy on wages and an overheads allowance. In order to protect jobs the projects must be additional activities which would not be done within a reaonsable period in the absence of the scheme.
Hence the community benefits in two ways: by the opportunity for longer-term unemployed to return to useful work and by the tangible benefits and amenities created under the guidance and through the involvement of local people. The response of the community to this scheme has been very encouraging. Currently over 1,000 projects have been approved, which account for over 2,500 people already in employment, and a further 900-plus jobs are on the way; and we are well on the way to meeting the scheme's target of 4,000 jobs by next year. The cost of this scheme in 1983–84 is estimated to be £10.4 million.
I should now like to turn, to what I have already referred to as the third priority area in Northern Ireland—housing—which is covered in Class V in the Estimates. As I have stated earlier, and as noble Lords will already be aware, the Government have afforded top priority among their social and environmental programmes to tackling the serious housing conditions in Northern Ireland which have been well catalogued
916
and described over the years. Noble Lords will also recall that, reflecting this priority and the strategy for reducing unfitness and for shortening the urgent waiting lists which have evolved from it, expenditure on housing has increased substantially in recent years. The provision now sought for housing underlines the Government's continuing commitment to the Province's housing needs and the programmes necessary to implement the agreed strategy. This present provision of over £180 million provides real evidence of the Government's determination to help the Housing Executive make inroads into the Province's housing problems through a twin attack on unfitness and the urgent element of the waiting list. The high levels of expenditure on housing are also of major significance in sustaining employment in the Province's construction industry.
In the current year the Housing Executive hopes to achieve its target of letting contracts for 4,500 new public sector dwellings. Thus, expenditure on new building should rise from the 1982–83 outturn of approximately £93 million to something over £100 million. The drive to improve the Housing Executive's own stock will also continue, but expenditure is expected to settle back somewhat from the peak of£69 million achieved in 1982–83 to about £58 million as part of the process of achieving stable programmes. Expenditure on house renovation grants will increase from £34 million in 1982–83 to about £40 million in 1983–84, but, in spite of this, demand for grants is now outstripping the available resources. As a result the Housing Executive has had recently to introduce a priority scheme of granting approvals.
The allocation to the voluntary housing movement reaffirms the Government's commitment to that sector and recognises the important contribution that housing associations are making to the housing effort. The provision (that is to say, £38.2 million) will enable expenditure on schemes for inner-city rehabilitation and provision for special needs, such as for the elderly and handicapped, to be increased from £21 million in 1982–83 to £25.2 million in the current year. In addition the allocation will, together with anticipated receipts from sales of equity, enable expenditure by the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association on its equity-sharing scheme to rise from £8½ million in 1982–83 to £15 million in 1983–84.
The Government are confident that the impact of the housing strategy, including the very considerable effort now being made by the private sector, will result in substantial improvements to Northern Ireland's housing conditions. As noble Lords will be aware, the Estimates also provide substantial sums for the other social and environmental programmes. For example, over £550 million is required for education, libraries and arts services, while just under £580 million is sought for health and personal social services.
I should like to conclude these opening remarks by saying something about the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly was elected last October and is carrying out its consultative and deliberative functions effectively and conscientiously. The work that it has completed is impressive and includes considering and reporting on draft Orders in Council, statutory rules and Government discussion

917
papers. When reports have been approved by the Assembly, they have been laid before Parliament.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has twice addressed plenary sessions of the Assembly and other Ministers have spoken on seven occasions. The six departmental committees of the Assembly have met the Ministers responsible for their respective departments on a total of 14 occasions as part of the process of establishing a frank and constructive dialogue between the Government and elected representatives. The committees have, in addition, received written and oral evidence from a wide range of interested groups and have made fact-finding visits to several locations within Northern Ireland and on one occasion to Great Britain. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met the Security and Home Affairs Committee of the Assembly once, although security responsibilities are not among those currently available for devolution. All this work is valuable, and the Government hope that in time the elected representatives of all the constitutional parties will come together to seek agreement on devolution in the Assembly.
As your Lordships know, this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to open one of these appropriation debates. In these remarks I have tried to outline reasonably briefly the main features of the draft order before us and to expand upon some of the main policy issues underlying the provision sought.
I believe that on these occasions it is normal for noble Lords to express their views on a great many matters affecting Northern Ireland, and at the end of the debate I shall try to reply to as many as possible of the points which are raised. I shall, I know, be greatly assisted by those noble Lords who have kindly taken the trouble to let me have in advance an indication of the topics, or at least some of them, that they will be raising this afternoon, and I am very grateful to them. Any points which are raised but with which I do not manage to deal this afternoon will be the subject of correspondence in due course. It is in that spirit, so to speak, that I commend the draft order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
4.50 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the information that he has given regarding this draft order. I should certainly like to welcome the noble Earl in his new capacity. As Minister of State he has responsibilities in connection with all the Northern Ireland problems, and I am certain that the House will echo what he has said about the importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland. I gather that he is dealing in particular with Northern Ireland agricultural matters.
As the noble Earl has said, the booklet of estimates is a mine of information. In fact, one could speak for a very long time on practically all the items listed in the booklet. It shows the massive financial assistance that is given to Northern Ireland—over £2½ billion in the estimates as a whole. This reflects considerable public spending involving interventionist policies, grants policies and subsidies policies. I am not at all querying
918
these, except to say that Treasury figures show that, for 1981–82, identifiable public expenditure, per head, was 47 per cent. higher in Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. As I say, I am not complaining about this. I should only like to see that policy transferred to the United Kingdom as a whole, though we realise that there are special problems in Northern Ireland.
Undoubtedly, all the development that can take place is welcome. That is why we gave support to the interim proposals brought forward in March. I believe that everyone will recognise that the problems of Northern Ireland are linked to the general economic problems of the United Kingdom as a whole. In particular, there is the problem of making Northern Ireland attractive to industrialists who may wish to set up business there, and that aspect is linked to matters with which we cannot deal this afternoon.
One point on which I have asked whether the Minister can give me some information relates to the heading Class I in the order and to agricultural support. I note under Vote 2, relating to animal health, Item A5, that last year expenditure arising from brucellosis was £1.2 million and from tuberculosis £0.6 million, whereas in the estimates for the forthcoming year those figures are more or less reversed. Obviously, those who are framing the estimates have to work on information given and plan in advance; and so I would ask the Minister whether the switch round, with more support to deal with tuberculosis and less support to deal with brucellosis, indicates something significant of which we should be made aware.
I want to raise another query regarding Class I, and I am sorry that, so far as I am concerned, this particular point has come up only within the past 48 hours and therefore I have not been able to give the noble Earl any advance notice of it. I gather that the food processing industries in Northern Ireland have been growing—and that will be generally welcome—but that they face the problem, which most food processing plants face, of seasonal supplies. There is the problem of how to maintain a steady flow of supplies, or alternatively how to cope with the problem of storage facilities, whether it involves vegetables or fruit—and in Northern Ireland the problem particularly concerns fish.
While I feel sure that there is a general welcome for the EEC grants to fishermen to assist them in their catches, which are a great help to the smaller Northern Ireland fishing ports, in many cases the processing plants are unable to store for some periods each year. This means laying off personnel, and often the cost of that is more in terms of unemployment benefit than would be the case if some financial assistance were given. I would ask whether the Government will look at the possibility of giving some assistance to the processing plants to help them over this problem—either aid to meet cash flow difficulties or help with the necessary storage facilities.
In Class II (trade, industry and employment) the total estimates provide for an overall decrease of £77 million. There may well be a simple explanation for this, but Vote 2—that is, general support for industry—is down 26 per cent. on the previous year.

919
There is a decrease in loans to industry shown under Item A2 of £12 million. There is also a drop of a further £12 million in industrial development grants shown under Item A3. In view of the need for maximum industrial development in Northern Ireland. I would ask whether these decreases have any significance, bearing in mind the general problem of the economic situation of Northern Ireland and the appalling figures of unemployment.
I note from the Economic Assessment No. 37 of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, issued in April—which, incidentally, I felt contained a mass of very useful information—an unemployment figure of 115,000, or 21 per cent. If my memory serves me correctly, that is 9 per cent. more than the unemployment rate in the rest of the United Kingdom. The report to which I refer makes it absolutely clear that this figure takes in only claimants for benefit. It leaves out those who, for various reasons, do not claim, and those who are on special training and employment schemes.
In some areas of Northern Ireland the unemployment rate is over 30 per cent. In Strabane there is nearly 50 per cent. male unemployment, and one must recognise the conditions that must exist in an area with such an unemployment rate. The report shows that in September 1982 there were only 452,000 people in employment. 11,000 fewer than in December 1981. As I think I stressed during a previous Appropriation Order debate, there has been a great drop in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland. There are only 96,000 employed in manufacturing industry. That figure is less than the total number of people out of work. Between 1980 and 1982 manufacturing production fell by one-fifth. With these terrible figures—I shall not go through different areas—idle hands, together with all the other problems that exist in Northern Ireland, are obviously contributing to some of the difficulties that we have to face in other directions.
I note the conclusion of the report of the Economic Council that it is likely to be 1984, and possibly 1985, before there is any marked decline in unemployment. The report states:
"It will take several years to reverse the sharp decline which has taken place over the past few years".
It also states:
"Some radical and substantial economic measures will be required if the Northern Ireland economy is to move to a more normal situation over the next few years".
I note also, in the No. 1 issue of the IDB Northern Ireland News—that is, the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland—that attention is drawn to the staggering fact which I have already mentioned; namely, that in 1970 there was a total of 177,000 people employed in manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland but by 1982 the figure had fallen to 95,000. I should like to quote from the No. 1 issue of the IDB Northern Ireland News:
"The staggering figure of 60,000 new job creations over the next five years would barely alleviate the situation".
It is for that reason that we have given support to the various measures which have been proposed by the
920
Government to assist industrial development in different ways.
When we last debated the Appropriation Order in March, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that he would peruse the document to which I referred, which had been issued by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. I should like to know whether the noble Earl has been able himself to peruse the document and whether the Government have seen in that document some measures that could be adopted to assist Northern Ireland.
The noble Earl referred to the position of Harland and Wolff. I am not certain whether his comments were optimistic or pessimistic. He said that the Government would be looking at the situation and would report to Parliament. Does this mean that there is the possibility of orders for Harland and Wolff? Or is there grave doubt about the possibility of orders? I should like the noble Earl, if he can, to state exactly what is the situation.
We also raised in the last Appropriation debate the position of the Learfan company. Can the Minister report any progress? Has the certification of airworthiness yet been given by the United States Administration? I note also provision in the estimates of £7·3 million for Shorts. Can the noble Earl say whether the hiccup which I gather arose when United States representatives recently visited Shorts has been cleared?
I should like to mention a few matters relating to mineral exploration and energy. Under Vote 3, there appears the Item C4 on mineral exploration. The Times of 4th July carried a report that a Sheffield-based firm, Burnett and Hallamshire Holdings, has submitted a proposal for open-cast mining near Lough Neagh. It says that 300 million tonnes of coal are available. The cost of the work is stated to be £50 million and the company is said to be hoping to win approval for a pilot scheme within "the next few weeks". Is there any possibility of this? What is the actual position?
It would seem that the report refers to the lignite deposits, mentioned by myself and other noble Lords in our last Appropriation debate. On that occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that there were recoverable reserves of 100 million tonnes of lignite. We notice that the Sheffield-based company refers to 300 million tonnes. The noble Earl also said that the Government were currently looking into the possible use of these resources, particularly in view of the high cost of electricity generation in the Province. Any developments along these lines would be welcome. It is undoubtedly important that any coal or other deposits found in Northern Ireland should be developed.
I note in the Estimates that the high cost of electricity generation requires the provision of no less than £62.5 million subsidy to keep the charges to the level of the highest comparable charges in England and Wales. This links with Vote 1 of Class III, relating to the possible introduction of supplies of natural gas. This was debated on the last Appropriation Order. On that occasion the noble Earl. Lord Gowrie, said that, although broad understanding had been reached with the Government of the Republic in May last year,

921
important issues remained to be resolved. I note that in a Commons Written Answer of 5th July this year, Mr. Adam Butler. Minister of State, said that discussions had not yet reached agreement. He emphasised that an early decision was required one way or the other because of the particular importance to the gas industry. With that, all noble Lords will, I think, agree. The Minister also said that arrangements were in hand for a meeting of Ministers of the North and South to deal with the matter. Can the noble Earl say whether actual plans have been made for this meeting, if it has not yet taken place, and what are the prospects?
This leads to the other energy problem. We understand that a report has been submitted by the National Coal Board on possible coal gasification. It is suggested that this production of town gas would be far cheaper than using natural gas. The snag, we understand, is that this could only be dealt with in Belfast.
There are three energy issues, lignite deposits, natural gas and coal gasification. I understand that an energy report was to be issued today by Northern Ireland Ministers. Naturally, I have not seen it. I hope that it will deal with these three problems. We have to ask whether there is a sound energy programme for Northern Ireland. There are three potentials to which I have referred. I should like to know whether there is a definite programme.
To revert to Class II, Vote 4 deals with tourism. All noble Lords will agree that tourism is important to Northern Ireland. Is there any particular reason for a decrease of two-thirds in the grants to catering compared with last year?
The noble Earl has referred to the provision of nearly £100 million for many schemes of training and temporary employment. I must emphasise that training is never wasted. It has great value when recovery comes. However, by itself, it does not provide any employment. Only measures for new employment can provide jobs for people undergoing training.
There is another matter in Vote 5 to which I should like to refer. In relation to the Fair Employment Agency, covered under D2, I note that the Irish Times carried a report which, it was claimed, was based on an article in The Listener,which I did not see, stating that, with one exception, every senior editorial post in television and radio in Northern Ireland was filled by Ulster Protestants. If this information is inaccurate, a reply by the Minister would be welcome. If it is correct, I must ask what action is being taken. Has the Fair Employment Agency been asked to look into the matter?
During the debate on the economy and industrial affairs on the Queen's Speech, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, dealt with a number of points that had been raised about genuine and fake jobs. He referred to infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland. I should like to quote from columns 352 and 353 on 29th June, when the noble Earl said that the Prime Minister's point about sustainable employment,
"could not he better illustrated than by experience in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a place where relatively small market towns arc linked by major motorways, admirably produced and enjoyable to drive along, but not capable of sustaining jobs once the infrastructure has been improved in that way. It is not S0 much a
922
distinction between real and fake jobs, as that all jobs must be sustained by the wealth generated to create them". [Official Report,29/6/83; col. 352.]
Certainly, in the light of what the Minister has said this afternoon, he does not accept that as being justification for not moving on developing infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Expenditure of£99 million on roads, lighting and other services for the infrastructure has our full support. We hope that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was not suggesting that these were matters that should not be supported.
There are only a few points remaining that I wish to make. Class VI relates to water and sewerage. I regret that I have not been able to raise the matter in advance with the Minister. Northern Ireland has always made the most of its large supplies of water for industry, food processing, fishing and tourism. I am informed, however, that over recent months, there have been a growing number of complaints of water supplies affected by agricultural seepage from manure, cleaning of silos and so on. If this information is correct—the reports that I have been given suggest that it is correct—there would be great damage to a natural asset. There is need for action. I should like to know whether the Government have any proposals, if they accept that the complaints are justified.
I accept, on behalf of these Benches, everything that the noble Earl says about the value of the work of the Assembly and echo his hope that all parties will eventually co-operate. I agree that visits by Ministers and the reports that have been issued have been valuable. But, in view of some of the very substantial figures given in the Estimates—for example, roads and transport, £125 million; education, £557 million; water and sewerage, £78 million: and health and personal social services, £579 million—to what extent are the points contained in these Estimates matters on which the Assembly should give its views, and to what extent are some of the relevant points dealt with in consultation with district councils?
I come to my last point. I understand that there is a £60 million EEC package for new projects in Belfast. I also understand that £20 million will be spent in the current year and the balance of £40 million by 1985. My simple question is this: although these grants for new projects are to be welcomed, with whom will they be discussed? Will it be with the Assembly, with the Belfast Council or with whom? Naturally we welcome the order and I am certain that the Minister will do his best to answer the many points that I have raised.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should like to start by congratulating the Minister on his new job and on the way in which he has obviously worked hard to familiarise himself with the problems. I should also like to thank him and his department for the great trouble they took to assist and the hospitality they showed to, a visiting sub-committee of the EEC Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member. We went to look at the special problems of Northern Ireland with regard to agriculture. It is that about which I should like to speak. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in his extensive and very valuable review of the whole field.

923
However, I, too, regard the 40 per cent. extra money spent per head in Northern Ireland as very worthwhile in view of the extra problems which they experience in every field. These problems also apply to agriculture. The noble Viscount. Lord Brookeborough—a member of our sub-committee—persuaded the department to take us on a very thorough tour to show us these special problems which affect agriculture in Northern Ireland. As a result of my own experience I knew something about them before we went, and particularly that Northern Ireland was extremely hard hit when we went into the EEC and has not really been compensated for the damage done to its intensive pig, poultry and, indeed. dairy industries.
After the war Northern Ireland led the way in using its natural assets which for agriculture included a very good port at Belfast and its nearness to the United States and Canada, which were a source of cheap grain. It built up a considerable competent and efficient industry for the intensive production of livestock which, of course, was exported to this country. But when we entered the EEC all that changed and instead of being the nearest country to a source of reasonably cheap grain, it found itself the most distant country from the source of grain in Europe and, for example. in East Anglia. Since then it has operated at a distinct disadvantage compared to the rest of agriculture in the United Kingdom. I think that with great profit and assistance to the appalling problem of unemployment, the Government might assist rather more than they are doing in that area.
We went to see the poultry and pig production, and were very impressed by the competence of the family farms that we visited and, indeed, by the competence of the co-operative bodies which were doing the marketing and in some cases the financing. All of that is good. but it is extraordinarily difficult to overcome the extra cost of basic foods, which is due mainly to transport. I know that, for example, the Government assist with a subsidy on the transport of eggs to this country. but that is not the main cost of the transport—an egg is easy to transport. The main cost arises over the transport of food into Ireland. I also know that the Government have assisted with the cost of the transport of EEC wheat into Ireland. But I should like the Minister to give his views on whether it would not he fair for these competent and intensive farmers to receive a subsidy on transport. which at least would put them on level terms with the same producers in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The problem of unemployment will be exacerbated as more and more of these people and the processors go out of business. I am sure that that would not be profitable and, as the noble Lord. Lord Underhill. said. it would cost a lot less to keep them in business than the cost of unemployment benefit for the employees and farmers themselves.
The other factor which impressed us greatly was the competence of both the department and the small family farms of Northern Ireland. We were taken to see several of these farms and the people and the farms were very impressive. They were all small farms. A big farm in Northern Ireland comprises 100 acres, but very few people are employed. They are mainly family
924
farms, and certainly the farms we saw are examples of the countryside and social set-up which many people would greatly envy. The small farms that we saw with these exceptional people—and they are an example which could he followed—were taking full advantage of the less favoured area grants to improve their farms. We saw some very well-equipped dairy farms. Most of the work was done by the farmers themselves, with the result that re-equipment did not cost them very much after grant. All that was involved was a great deal of hard work, which is a tremendous virtue. The set-up was good. The advice offered by the advisory services was obviously good. The dairy and pig production looked as though it would produce good food at a reasonable price and would maintain the structure in the countryside, which is necessary if the whole set-up is to continue.
I trust that the Government are helping the Northern Ireland department to extend the less favoured areas. We saw farms which were being turned over to the production of beef, again with the aid of the subsidy, part of which our Government pay and part of which the EEC pays. These farms were being turned into very competent units of agriculture and very desirable family units in the countryside. In other words, we saw a tremendous amount of good work going on, and I trust and hope that the Government will back the department in its efforts to extend the less favoured areas.
Drainage is probably the main problem. This is country with a very stiff and impervious subsoil which needs to be drained. But the farmers there recognise this and are willing to play their part in work and in money to get the land into a productive state. I think that it is enormously useful. I think that this is certainly far better than more people becoming unemployed, with the already appallingly high rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I congratulate the Minister on the competence of his department, and I trust he will ensure that his colleagues in the Government will give full backing to the excellent work that they are doing in that Province.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate, being one of the Members of Sub-Committee D who visited Northern Ireland last week. One of the responsibilities which that Committee has taken—and I think others have too—is to visit the areas where we want to find out more about how things are going, and also to discuss with the people on the spot how the work of the EEC grants and EEC activities affect the area in which they are living and working.
Last year I was one of the small delegation which went to the South of Italy and an area in Provence in France which are also less favoured areas. It gives one an opportunity of studying closely what is being done through the CAP in many parts of the European Community, and I am sure it is a valuable experience. I should like to support all that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has said as to the interest which we had in what we saw in Northern Ireland. My impression was the same as his, that here was a small country struggling hard under difficult conditions, apart from the political conditions about which we all know all

925
too well. It has also difficult conditions in the soil and its type of farming, and in my opinion they work extremely competently.
We saw there what family farms really mean. Just as in parts of Scotland, particularly the Highlands and the crofting areas, we all know about family farms, so in Northern Ireland I was tremendously impressed by the way in which these families are tackling their farms and working closely together with their neighbours and, above all, with the Department of Agriculture. I was impressed by the close liaison between the farming community and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. In talking, as we all did, to the officials as well as to the farmers I felt strongly that here was really good co-operation, a really good combination, and that it was working extremely well.
We have discussed in your Lordships' House many times the different aspects of EEC agricultural policy, and also the policy connected with social developments in different parts of Europe. I felt strongly that in Northern Ireland, while I absolutely agree that everything that can be done to help from the common agricultural policy is well worth doing, certain aspects of agriculture and farming could be classified to some extent as also worth supporting from the social point of view.
It is clear that if the family farms in Northern Ireland were to founder in any way, or not to be able to carry the expenses and the work of the families, then it would be a disaster if those people had to give up. I presume they would simply have to go into the towns, Belfast or elsewhere, where there is already high unemployment, and the value of what had been done on the land would be lost. Not only that, but from a social point of view it would be a disaster.
One can look upon the assistance being given to the farmers in Northern Ireland not only from the point of view of what they produce, which is valuable and good. but also because it means that these people can live a happy and delightful life on those farms provided that they get some help for the cultivation, some help for the improvement, of both the housing and the land. I was impressed by the housing in these areas. I inquired how it was that the houses seemed to be so extremely good—and they were excellent—and I was told that this was one of the things which the Government in Northern Ireland in the past had been extremely keen to do.
In fact, someone told me that when the first Lord Brookeborough was Prime Minister in Northern Ireland he was offered help either for railways or roads. He discarded the idea of railways. He encouraged the development of roads and, above all, encouraged the grant aid to people to improve their houses. The result is that the housing we saw—we went to about 5 or 6 farms—was extremely good. The people living in these houses were obviously keeping them in excellent condition. It was a happy and satisfactory result of this policy which has been carried on there for a long time.
We were in the County of Fermanagh which, as your Lordships know, borders on Southern Ireland. I was impressed by the fact that I do not think I heard anybody talking politically to us about anything to do with agriculture, or making any sort of complaint about problems which obviously must arise there since
926
we were on the border. They just live a perfectly normal life competently and efficiently, and in close co-operation with each other and with the agricultural organisation of the whole of Northern Ireland. I was tremendously impressed by this, and I thought that the help which they get through the various ways in which the EEC operates is very well worth while. I do not think that I have ever seen any assistance better used than what we saw in the short two days that we spent there.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has mentioned the other places we went to. We saw, of course, the egg packing station, the piggeries, and so on, which are very well done too. We went to no less than two agricultural colleges, where again I had the impression that these were highly practical. The young people there were there because they were themselves engaged, or would be engaged, in their family farms. They were working closely together with the people running the colleges as well as with their own families and the work which they were doing on the land.
This development in Northern Ireland may cost a certain amount of money. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that a lot of money is involved in this, but it is well worthwhile. If all the money used in Government departments and elsewhere were as well spent as it is in Ulster I think that we should be very happy indeed. My impression was that here was a competent, well organised community happily working together. I hope that we shall continue to help Northern Ireland in every way we can, because I am sure it is a good investment, it is well worthwhile, and highly satisfactory from every point of view.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl once again for having followed the precedent of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in writing to us in advance seeking our views as to points we might raise during this debate. I should also like to take the opportunity to welcome him to his new post in the Northern Ireland Office. I do not think that I have met him since we overlapped at the same house at school when he was in the library as the Viscount Stormont and I was a lower boy. I cannot recall whether I actually fagged for him, but if I did he cannot have been a hard taskmaster otherwise undoubtedly the experience would have marked itself indelibly on my mind. It was a great pleasure, therefore, to see him again when he came to address the agriculture committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, appropriately enough at Stormont, a couple of weeks ago.
On the subject of agriculture, Class I, in Vote 2, reference is made to marketing and I should be interested to know if Her Majesty's Government have any new ideas in mind for the development and improvement of marketing in agriculture.
Turning now to the subject of less-favoured areas, which has already been mentioned, I took the liberty of raising this matter on the Appropriation Order on 14th March and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that inevitably all boundaries carry the likelihood of dispute. Indeed, we have often referred to it as the

927
"line of discontent". But I am wondering if the best course of action might not be to appoint an independent appeals body which would adjudicate on whether the areas classified as "less favourable" were fair and just.
Our dispute with Her Majesty's Government is that they appear to be delaying confirmation of their willingness to make their contribution to the cost of increasing the less-favoured areas. This was the impression we received from Mr. Dalsager when he addressed the agriculture committee a few weeks ago. I strongly stress that than early decision on this is necessary, because many farmers are losing money every month because—though they qualify to be included in the new less-favoured areas—the failure of Her Majesty's Government to persevere and pursue this matter to its conclusion means that they are still having to pay, for instance, co-responsibility levy which otherwise they would not have to do. I hope that the noble Earl will act as a new broom. As he will be aware, the total number of less-favoured areas in Scotland is 92 per cent. It may have been due to his influence that such a high percentage was realised in Scotland. If that is so. I hope he will employ the same magical touch now that he is responsible for Northern Ireland.
Under Class I. the only other point I make is that there may be an argument for setting up a contingency fund so that quick aid could be given to various farming enterprises when, season by season, they look like running into difficulties. I am thinking of last year about the potato growers. Soon after the Assembly started to meet, we were urging the setting up of a stock feed scheme for potatoes, to take surplus potatoes off the market. In the event that was introduced, but I respectfully suggest that it was far too late in the season. Had it been introduced early in the year, when it was apparent that there would be a surplus of potatoes, it would have made all the difference.
Under Class II, I welcome the assistance that has been given to industry as is reported in the Industrial Development Board's news: the corporation tax relief of up to 18 per cent. for new approved projects, 100 per cent. de-rating of industrial premises and so on. I also welcome the setting up of the IDB. It would not he fair of me at this early stage to ask the noble Lord what he thought the prospects for success of the IDB were, but I hope that the next time we have an appropriation order debate he may be able to give us some idea of his projected feelings about it.
One other thing under Class II that I would mention is that it might he desirable to carry over any under-spend from year to year, not only to recover the money that has not been spent but to encourage providence on the part of the departments, to remove the incentive to spend lavishly during the latter part of the year in order to spend the whole budget so that the allocation next year will not be reduced.
Under Class III the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned natural gas or coal gas. The Coal Board maintains that coal-generated gas is cheaper than natural gas from Kinsale. I am in no position to adjudicate on that. I merely say that an early decision is most urgent, because the gas industry is declining at an alarming rate.
928
I diverge here for a moment, having been bold enough to mention the noble Lord. Lord Underhill. If I heard him right—I may not have because I was writing a note at the time he was speaking—I believe he said that there was an article in The Listener,which he had not seen and I have not seen either, claiming that in the entire broadcasting staff in Northern Ireland there was only one Roman Catholic. That is a most scurrilous allegation. if it was made. It does not take any great gift as a detective to realise that the head of religious broadcasting in BBC Northern Ireland is a Roman Catholic because he is a priest called Father Skelly. One of the chief news presenters for BBC Northern Ireland is a Roman Catholic. He is a personal friend, and there are many more who I know are Roman Catholics—but I have never been so impertinent as to ask because I consider that to inquire into people's religion is reverse discrimination.
To make an allegation of that sort is absolutely appalling, and if I were still a governor of the BBC—I have not been for over 10 years—I would urge a rigorous internal examination with the editor of The Listener to give evidence. As it is I shall make a point of obtaining a copy of that issue of The Listener and I shall make a strong complaint, perhaps even to the Press Council, because it has no right whatever to propagate totally erroneous and damaging information of that sort. I resent it extremely strongly.
Returning to the subject of the debate, under Class IV, I should be interested to know whether the road fund tax is able fully to fund road works in the Province. In other words, do road works have to be subsidised from other sources or is there a surplus from the road fund tax? Furthermore. I should be interested to know whether the new Foyle Bridge at Londonderry, over which there has been some controversy. is being funded from the road fund tax. If so, is the cost of it detracting from other normal road works?
Another point in this connection is that if there is to he no toll on the new Foyle Bridge, which is costing many millions of pounds. why then should there be a charge for using the water ferry to Strangford? Both, surely, are extensions of the road system. Why should an expensive bridge be free of charge when a comparatively inexpensive boat should bear a fee, which was recently approved to be increased by up to threefold over the next five years? Under the same class I should like to know (if it is possible for me to be told) when the new Belfast City rail link will be completed because this will greatly enhance the value of the Belfast to Larne railway line and will help to maximise the success of Northern Ireland railways, which had a surprisingly good year last year, showing a very respectable profit.
Under Class VI, I quite agree that river pollution must be tackled in a most rigorous manner. Farmers are blamed for the emission of slurry and silage effluent, but I should like to say—and I know this for a fact—that the complainants about polluted water courses are, in the majority, farmers and they complain to a certain extent because there are maverick farmers who are careless and who allow their silage effluent to escape into water courses. But there are other farmers who were ill-advised, perhaps unintentionally, when they originally constructed their slurry tanks or retention tanks or their farmyard

929
drainage systems; because I think that neither they nor the Ministry of Agriculture (as it was then) advisory officers realised just how penetrating silage effluent can be. It is corrosive, it can find any hair-crack and it can cause far more damage than almost any other form of polluting effluent. It takes only a small quantity of silage effluent to make a river completely dead.
Therefore, I suggest that, whereas persuasion has been the main policy of the authorities up to now, persuasion should be continued but the farmers should be advised as to how they can prevent pollution. If they had been wrongly advised in the first instance on the lay-out of their farmyards and slurry and effluent disposal systems and were granted-aided for the same, they should once more be grant-aided to make modifications to prevent that problem from occurring in the future. If they fail to be amenable to that advice, they should be prosecuted without any hesitation whatsoever.
Under Class VIII I should just like to make brief reference to Lagan College. I am not asking any question about this subject because I realise that there may perhaps be negotiations in progress at the moment over its being awarded state-aided status, and I would not like to rock the boat. I would merely say that I hope that the department will take a favourable view of this. I would say to the noble Earl on the Front Bench that a very warm invitation would be extended to him or to any of his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office if they would like to come and visit the college. We have had a number of visitors there, all of whom have been most impressed. I myself am most impressed—not least because the young pupils there are actually polite, which is something that one does not always find in schools nowadays, unfortunately.
In Class XI, the Northern Ireland Assembly has received reference in the debate this afternoon. I would endorse the opinion stated that it is doing a good job in its scrutineering role. There is still not complete accord as to how progress towards devolution should be achieved; but there is one thing that all parties in the Assembly have in common and that is their concern over security. Many of us ask why it is that recently an extradition treaty should have been agreed between the Republic of Ireland and the USA while we have so far failed to get the Republic's Government to agree an extradition treaty between themselves and the United Kingdom.
I have been told that the backing of warrants is in fact a closer way of dealing with extra-territorial terrorist situations, but I can only say that over the last years it has not proved to be effective. This is a matter where I think that all of us in the Assembly would like to see Her Majesty's Government putting on more pressure with regard to the Government of the Republic of Ireland so as to try to make sure that terrorists, from wherever they come, are brought to justice. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Earl and his colleagues for their attention to the affairs of Northern Ireland. Even if they are sometimes barracked when they come to address the Assembly, their presence there is in fact greatly appreciated.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I, too, should like to start by congratulating the noble Earl on his new
930
appointment. It is very nice to welcome him to what can be rather a small group of noble Lords involved in Northern Irish affairs. Nevertheless, though quite small it is also select. So it is very nice to welcome him. I am certainly not going to make a long speech. I was not even going to comment on any of the details contained in the Appropriation Order; my noble friend Lord Underhill has done that very extensively. But I would like to take this opportunity to remark on one particular issue which very much influences Northern Ireland's economic state, and that is the Community funds which go to Northern Ireland. In so doing, I should also like to comment on that vexed question of additionality and to ask the Minister a particular question on it.
Additionality has long been a point of very great contention between the Commission and the national Governments, and it would certainly take a very much braver person than I to go into it in very great depth. But, as it relates to Northern Ireland, we are confronted with a very simple question; namely, whether European Community membership has meant that Community funds coming from the Community's social and regional development funds have afforded extra help for the development of the Northern Ireland economy over and above what might otherwise have come from the Exchequer or, on the other hand, whether it has not meant that.
The answer, in one instance, at any rate, is that it has meant that; and I think that it is a matter of great relief that the initiative which was launched in (I think) 1979 by the Northern Irish Members of the European Parliament to channel Community funds towards Belfast housing has come to fruition. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot. waxed very lyrical about farmhousing in the countryside. But I fear that the same cannot be said for housing in Belfast. It is a very great relief to hear that £60 million from the European Community has been made available, that it has had the blessing of our European partners and that, although it is technically aimed at urban renewal, these funds will be used for improving Belfast's deplorable housing. Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that the Government have undertaken to ensure its additionality.
Having conceded that in this particular case European funds have indeed been treated as additional, we should perhaps now look at the whole principle of additionality with regard to Northern Ireland. But first it is important to point out that the problem really lies simply in the fact that the principle is regarded in a very different light as seen from Brussels, Whitehall and Northern Ireland. This, in my view, is what constitutes the misunderstandings and the mistrust which are so detrimental to a good relationship in this triangular partnership.
Thus, seen from Brussels, money in considerable amounts is committed to projects and schemes in the Province, which is recognised by the Commission as a hard hit area. These funds are therefore seen as a form of positive assistance, agreed by the European institution and based on an assessment of the region's true needs. It is most certainly meant as additional to whatever is provided by the national Government. But, as seen from London, these funds are regarded as a way to relieve the problems of the Chancellor of the

931
Exchequer by giving him revenue with which to finance his spending.
In this context, in respect of Northern Ireland it has to be understood that there is a forward programme of Government spending which is quite separate from the other United Kingdom domestic Exchequer items. This spending programme does not necessarily increase as a result of any increase in European transfers into the Exchequer, based on Northern Irish applications. Thus, from London, this money—earmarked to make a contribution to the national Budget and thus only indirectly to regional policies—merely helps to sustain national aid to regions like Northern Ireland.
What it really boils down to is that, whereas on the one hand Northern Ireland is treated separately within the United Kingdom's domestic financial arrangements when dealing with Europe, on the other hand Northern Ireland is in fact but a small part of the United Kingdom/Europe package. The relevance of additionality therefore applies to the United Kingdom overall rather than to Northern Ireland, and while this may satisfy the Treasury it does not satisfy either the Northern Irish, who feel cheated of the funds they know were destined for them, or the Community, who feel that regions such as Northern Ireland should experience the direct benefit of these additional resources.
Therefore, arising out of this imperfect situation this is the suggestion I should like to put to the Minister. Does he not think that in order for funds to flow additionally to Northern Ireland from Europe changes could he made to permit the relevant departments of Government in Northern Ireland to provide the matching amounts necessary to attract European support in the first place from within the Northern Ireland grant in aid? That, of course, would constitute, from the Treasury's point of view, a difference in presentation as well as in principle; but it would not necessarily cost them any more. Also in European Community terms it could mean a significant step towards clarity and satisfying the mechanisms for the use of European Community moneys. Finally, from the Northern Irish point of view, it would make them feel as though they were being treated on their own needs, and they would thereby recognise the benefits of Community membership in a greater way.
This in turn—and I have said this before in your Lordships' House—would add to the trust and reliance that the Northern Irish people have in the European framework. They will find it perhaps a means of finding agreement on not only economic issues but eventually also more far-reaching matters and political issues, because one does not have to think very hard to realise that the Anglo-Irish framework has not provided a recipe which is entirely the right one.
Finally, my last point concerns the initiative suggested by the European Parliament last March to make an inquiry into the economic and social situation in Northern Ireland including the internal political crisis. Your Lordships will know, in spite of the rather unexpectedly harsh reaction of the British Government against this proposal, that Mr. Niels Haagerup, the very much respected Dane in whose
932
hands the inquiry will lie, nevertheless intends to start his work in September. For my part, I certainly do not see this initiative as an interference. I cannot see anything in the least bit threatening about it. After all, as I have just been outlining, we are delighted to accept economic intervention—in the case I was mentioning, in the shape of £60 million to give the people of Belfast better homes—and we certainly do not look upon that as unwelcome interference. So I really do not think that the Government are in a very strong position in objecting to an EEC initiative which is designed to examine how their own money is being applied.
In addition, it must be true to say that the report will also serve to inform our European partners a little as to our problems in the Province. We often do not attract as much sympathy and understanding in this regard from our European partners as we should like, and such a survey can but promote an awareness which would help us. So I hope that the noble Earl the Minister can give us an assurance that the Government will see that Mr. Haagerup and his delegation will he accorded all the help and support that this important mission deserves.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am addressing your Lordships as another member of the EEC Sub-Committee D who had the privilege of making this recent trip to Northern Ireland. I was the food processor on the sub-committee and I rather suspect I was brought along by the farmers to teach me a little bit about farming; but, however that may be. I am sure that my arguments with them will continue. I, too, would like very much to congratulate my noble friend on his new appointment and to thank him and his department for their welcome. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who set up the whole arrangement in the first place.
I have a few points to make; I shall not go over other ground. It is quite clear that the British Government are well aware of the problems of Northern Ireland and are doing the best they can to alleviate those problems in agriculture as well as in other areas: the sorts of figures that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, produced show that to be the case. But the point of Sub-Committee D going there was, of course, to try to get the message through to Europe.
I hope very much that we shall find some way of having the results of our experience fitted into a report because, as your Lordships know, the reports of all our sub-committees are very well read throughout the Commission and indeed in the European Parliament. They are said to be among the most unbiased and well-informed reports that come from any of the Parliaments anywhere within the Community. So they have acquired a great standing and I would hope very much that we shall find a way to include our experience in a report. My own feeling is that it would be inappropriate to make a special report on Northern Ireland, but if we could find some reports referring to similar or related problems within the Community it may be that we could make a composite report on those parts of the Community where there are agricultural difficulties owing to their special position and their special location.

933
My noble colleague Lord Mackie pointed out the sea transport difficulties and suggested that a subsidy might he made. I found myself very much recognising that difficulty when I got to Northern Ireland—though it was not my first visit by any means—by seeing it set against the farming problem, because it is exactly the same problem as we have in the Isle of Wight. It is now a very much greater problem than it was 30 years ago because of the almost staggering increase in the numbers of big lorries and roll-on roll-off ferries.
In earlier days the relative transport costs for different parts of the United Kingdom were not so marked because many of the ports around the coast found that the cheapest way of getting goods transported from one place to another was in small freighters. That meant they were in exactly the same position as the major areas such as Northern Ireland, which was cut off from the mainland, the smaller islands like the Isle of Wight, or indeed, as my noble friend will recognise, the smaller islands of Scotland for which he has recently had responsibility. The important point is that there is a much greater difference between transport costs for these more remote areas than there was 30 years ago and earlier. So it requires to be dealt with.
The Isle of Wight has exactly this problem, but on a much smaller scale. We were told about the cost of raw materials going into Northern Ireland, particularly when they have to import EEC grain instead of getting it across from North America at much reduced prices, and we, too, have that problem of getting raw materials in and then getting the finished products out. Again, we also have a higher unemployment problem, though happily it is not so marked. So it is a real problem and it particularly applies to Northern Ireland, because it is also at the periphery of the European Community in relation to what one might call the centre of gravity of the Community in the heartland of mainland Europe.
It was most useful to me as a food processor—albeit as a countryman, having been brought up in the country—to see farming close to. I learned a great deal, not only from the Northern Ireland farmers but also from my noble colleagues who farm too. I saw them poking things and digging in the ground, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was not content to dig down into the clay, but dug even further to see how far it went. At one stage, I though that he would fall into a large hole. As an outsider, I was also extremely impressed. as was the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, by the competence of these farmers and by the way in which they coped with their difficulties, many of which are forced upon them by the disciplines of the common agricultural policy. The cheerfulness with which they viewed the issue was most heartening. They obviously had their difficulties, but there was a cheerful atmosphere which I personally much appreciated.
Nearer to my own speciality, if I may put it in that way, I was most impressed by the work at the Loughry College of Agriculture and Food Technology in County Tyrone, where the food technologists are positively seeking to develop new processed foods. Because of the costs of getting fresh eggs, for example, from Northern Ireland to the European Market, they are saying to themselves, "If we cannot economically get our fresh eggs out, let us find ways and means of
934
processing them in a new way that nobody else has thought about, so that we can then sell the processed articles." They are encouraging entrepreneurs to set up and to develop the results of their scientific studies.
For example, they have packaged scrambled eggs. I do not think that all my noble colleagues much liked the scrambled eggs which we tasted, but it was a move in the right direction and a little more work could bring it on a little bit more. They are also doing things with the parts of a meat carcase which will not sell very easily, or which are not very pleasant in their original form. So they are doing a great deal of good in that respect.
The important point is that the researchers are taking the initiative. They are seeing a problem, they are taking the initiative and, having got the scientific work done, are then going out and finding a Northern Ireland entrepreneur. They made the point that they were not thinking of selling their patent to Japan or anything like that. They wanted these methods of processing foods to be developed within Northern Ireland, so as to bring more employment and more income from overseas into that country. I agree with my noble friend Lady Elliot that the total impression of this visit was of money well spent by the Government in encouraging people to take the sort of attitudes that I have been describing. She was absolutely right on that.
Finally, I was as impressed as I was earlier, when I last had a connection with the Northern Ireland Government nearly 15 years ago, in connection with another job that I was then doing. At that time, I was particularly impressed by the way that the structure of government in Northern Ireland seemed to be in the right balance with the rest of the United Kingdom. It was neither too big nor too small, and it was powerful enough to do a good job, but far enough away from Whitehall not to have to refer to it all the time. Altogether it was a much happier, more hardworking and more efficient group of people than any major local authority in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is a great credit to the successive Governments since we have had direct rule that they have preserved that cadre of excellent people in the Northern Ireland civil service, and have enabled them to go on roughly as they were doing before when they were governed locally from Stormont. The overall impression of efficiency, of good humour and of getting on with the job was really magnificent to see, and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on taking over this team and on already having impressed them as being somebody with whom they want to work.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Mais: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Earl on his recent appointment. May I also apologise for putting my name down so very late in the batting order; but I particularly want to take this opportunity to draw attention to some of the problems which affect the new university at Coleraine. I do so because they have a very large number of young people there, and they are the type of young people who will be needed in Ulster in the years to come. As I understand it, the present position is that it has been decreed that they will be amalgamated with the Belfast Technical College. This does not meet with much

935
favour from either the university or the technical college, but the fact remains that it has been decreed that the amalgamation shall take place. I recently heard that there has been some disagreement over this, and exactly what will happen now I do not know. But what I do know is that it is rumoured that the University Grants Committee are likely to cut off their grant to Coleraine unless they comply with the Government's wishes.
I have had a good deal to do with that university, and what impressed me more than anything else about the establishment were the characteristics of all the students there; the fact that they were all very well turned-out and very articulate, as you would probably expect from that part of the country. They were a very well disciplined body, and the relationship between the staff and the students was very good indeed. It would be a tragedy, particularly at this stage, if that university were either closed or restricted in its present activities. It would cause a great deal of distress. Students would leave or would be got rid of—whichever way you look at it—before they obtained their degrees, and at this particular moment we do not want more unemployment in that troubled land than there is already.
Discipline is better there than I have seen in any other university—and I am pro-chancellor of one. I only wish that we had the same type of student and the same attitude to life as those students at Coleraine have. If the university is closed or restricted in its activities, that will undoubtedly result in a very large number of splendid young people being unable to complete their degrees and being thrown on to the labour market. That is a market where there are practically no jobs going, whether or not you have a degree, but you have a slightly better chance of getting a job if you have a degree.
It is, I know, a difficult problem. The University Grants Committee have been told that they must make cuts. The university with which I am connected has suffered in the same way as other universities. The suffering will be felt largely by the students. The students at Coleraine are just the sort of people Northern Ireland wants at the moment, and will want in the future. If the university is closed, those students will become disillusioned and ready listeners to the particular kind of propaganda talk to which they will obviously be subjected.
I would earnestly ask her Majesty's Government to consider, whatever the University Grants Committee may think and whatever allowance or allowances are available to the University Grants Committee, whether support for the new university at Coleraine for an interim period, anyway, should be part of the defence or stabilisation of Ireland, particularly Ulster. It would be far better than paying unemployment benefit. Far from the students becoming good citizens with the right outlook on life and prepared to work hard, they will become fertile ground which undoubtedly will be worked by those who bring disruption and murder to that very unhappy land.
As I have said, I put down my name late to speak in this debate, but I felt that this was an opportunity to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to
936
the fact that there is more to keeping Coleraine University intact than just the question of money. Money is short. I know, and all the universities are trying to get what they can. However, I would earnestly request that so far as the new University of Coleraine is concerned it should he treated as a special case.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Moyola: My Lords, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Earl on his appointment to the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that he will have a very interesting and rewarding time. Even more strongly, I hope that we in Northern Ireland will benefit from his wise advice and ministrations. I owe the noble Earl, I am afraid, a number of apologies. First, time has marched on. I shall probably have to leave before the noble Earl replies to the debate, as I have to catch an aeroplane fairly soon. I hope the noble Earl will also forgive me for not having given him notice of what I intend to say.
Until I arrived at the House last night I had not intended to take part in our debate this afternoon. I then heard the news about the appalling murders which took place yesterday in Northern Ireland—the murders of the Ulster Defence Regiment men and two other people at Crossmaglen. I mention this, first, to express sympathy to the families of the victims. I mention it also for two other reasons. The first and most important reason is that I want to say once again how grateful all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland are to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the army for what they have done over the years. I wish that I had known about these appalling incidents before I left home, for I should have brought with me some facts and figures to highlight how extremely successful the RUC and the army have been over the years. I am afraid that their praises are sung not nearly loudly enough or often enough. Unhappily, their praises are very seldom sung by Northern Ireland politicians. Therefore, I feel that those of us who come from Northern Ireland should take the opportunity to put our appreciation on record.
The other reason why I raise this matter is that I am on record on several occasions in your Lordships' House as saying that I am opposed to political initiatives or so-called solutions. They always seem to generate a period of violence and sometimes death. Certainly they generate destruction and difficulties. It is an open question whether yesterday's debate on hanging in another place would have been regarded by the terrorists as requiring some form of initiative. It certainly seems to have stirred the terrorists to this dastardly act of defiance. I am not suggesting that the debate should not have taken place. That would be nonsense. However, it is an example of the unforeseen dangers which can overtake any initiative, however far away, which in any way concerns Northern Ireland. I must add that I am more than thankful for yesterday's vote against hanging. I should like to express my appreciation of the very forthright stand taken by the Secretary of State, which I am certain was absolutely right.
I should like to touch very briefly on agriculture. Northern Ireland has had very generous and kind support for its agriculture from this side of the water. I was particularly pleased to hear the remarks made

937
about the need for aid to the pig and poultry industries—the need for cheaper cereal imports for Northern Ireland. The pig and poultry industries are both fading away: they have declined steadily over the last 10 years. Unless we can get grain for these industries at the same price as people pay in this country, those industries will continue to decline. That would mean more unemployment. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, they are small farmers. Small farmers exist only by means of intensive farming, which leads them very quickly into pigs and poultry.
I should also like to mention the less favoured areas. I raised this matter in your Lordships' House about 15 months ago, but no decision has yet been taken. This is a vitally important matter for farmers in Northern Ireland because of their distance from the markets. All I can say at this stage is that I hope that the new Minister will be able to get some action taken on this vitally important matter. I wish him well in his new appointment.
6.19 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I must apologise to the Minister for the fact that my name does not appear on the list of speakers. I thought I gave my name to the Whips Office last week when I told them that the Minister had kindly agreed to our subcommittee having a debate on Northern Ireland agriculture. I apologise to the House and to the Minister.
Before I join in the debate on the Appropriation (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, I should like very solidly to support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Moyola. All the people in my area were absolutely horrified by the foul murder yesterday of the four UDR men. It was in our area that the murders were committed. Our deepest sympathy goes out to their relatives and also to the relatives of the other two men who were foully murdered in County Armagh. I cannot convey to this House the effect on the community, even after all these years of horrors, of destruction of this sort. It is also impossible to convey to this House our admiration for and the esteem in which we hold the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its Reserves, the Army and the UDR. We really do admire them for all they do throughout the whole year.
I should like to start by welcoming my noble friend Lord Mansfield on his appointment, and to thank him very much for everything he did for us in entertaining us at Stormont House, and in introducing my fellow Members to the heads of his department and also to the elected heads of all the organisations of farming in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of Northern Ireland costing 47.5 per cent. more than the average—and this is the important point—for the rest of the United Kingdom. This is undoubtedly true and even I cannot contradict it—but it should not be thought that Northern Ireland costs 47.5 per cent. more than any part of the rest of the United Kingdom. There are plenty of other parts of the United Kingdom with shipbuilding, steelmaking or coal mines, and with unemployment near the rate of Northern Ireland's,
938
which are costing more than Northern Ireland as a whole.
The figure of 47.5 per cent. for the whole of the United Kingdom is taken as an average and does not—I repeat, does not—include in any way grants to steel, to coal, or to other nationalised industries. While it is quite correct to say that Northern Ireland costs 47.5 per cent. more than the whole of the United Kingdom, it is quite unfair to suggest that Northern Ireland is the most expensive, and an unbelievably expensive, part of the United Kingdom. Such a claim does a great disservice to the unity of the United Kingdom as such, and I believe that the Government should do something separately to cost other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will kindly give way, my intention was not to criticise the extra cost but to point out the benefits of public spending, which I should like to see in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Brookeborough: I am sorry, my Lords, but the noble Lord has taken me wrong. I am grateful to him for raising the subject because it is one I have meant to raise many times. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for raising the absolute fib and distortion of facts concerning the BBC and television, and should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in his protest in that respect.
Noble Lords before me, in my sub-committee, have fought the case for Northern Ireland agriculture with tremendous vigour—much more vigour than I myself could tight with, or it might be thought that I was being partial or was an interested party. At this stage, I must say that I am an interested party, because I am both an Ulsterman and have something to do with agriculture. I should like to thank the Government for giving this House an opportunity to debate the problems of Northern Ireland at this time. Above all, I should like to thank the Select Committee for allowing Sub-Committee D to examine the question and problems of Northern Ireland.
The duty of Sub-Committee D of the EC Select Committee is to examine the problems of agriculture over the whole of the EEC. In Northern Ireland, our agricultural problems encapsulate some of the contradictions which exist and have been built up by the operation of the CAP over time. The first concerns our intensive industry of pigs and poultry. Our pig and poultry industry is built up in an area which is in opposition to the general intention of the CAP—which is that agriculture shall be pursued in such a way that the climate best suits a particular crop. As your Lordships have heard, with pigs and poultry the raw material is a very long way from its manufacturing source in Northern Ireland. In spite of very generous aid by the Government, there is still a grave danger to the jobs of the 10,000 people who are still employed in the pig and poultry industry in Northern Ireland.
The issue here is very simple; it is financial and social. Will we pay more to have people on the dole or pay less to have people still in employment? That is what will be the end result. I recognise that the aid has been extremely generous, but I reckon it is still necessary for it to continue in some way on a

939
permanent basis, to give confidence that the Northern Ireland farmer will be put at the same level as somebody in, say, Liverpool or Glasgow.
The next industry which further emphasises the problems or contradictions is the grass-based industry, because, here, we are totally in keeping with the general policy of the CAP. There is no crop that grows better than grass in Northern Ireland; indeed, there is no other crop to grow. We are faced, in the case of milk and beef—with milk, in a massive way—with a colossal surplus. I want to know what we are to do in those areas where there is no alternative to the surplus of milk and beef which is being created at a time when the whole of the future of the common agricultural policy—and indeed of the EEC itself—is being threatened by the cost of massive surpluses and when our sub-committee is trying to deal with the problems of the surpluses in the dairy industry.
Finally, I wish to deal with the question of an extension of the less favoured areas, which other noble friends have mentioned. With increasing unemployment in the EEC, the emphasis of the CAP has changed in favour of attempting to maintain the social structure of the Community. The extension of the LFAs is one of the weapons that can be used to maintain that social structure in these rather remote areas. Despite Northern Ireland's case for the extension of these areas, and despite the fact that it was made more than two years before the United Kingdom's case was presented, we have still not had a resolution. The United Kingdom's case was stated and presented in December1982, but at no time have Her Majesty's Government made the commitment of saying that they will fund the national part of the aid, which is necessary before EEC aid is made available. I would press my noble friend the Minister equally to press his colleagues to get that commitment from the Government. Without it, the EEC itself will not be very quick in making its commitment.
I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate of the sub-committee on which I have the honour to serve. They have done us proud in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that any of us—and I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Mais—have any apology to make for taking quite a long time to deal with the Appropriation Order for Northern Ireland, and I have great pleasure in commending it to your Lordships.
6.29 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking noble Lords for their welcome to these Estimates, and also for the very valuable contributions which every one has made to this debate. Speaking personally, perhaps I might also thank those noble Lords who have welcomed me to my new position in the Government. In many ways, it seems a home from home because I am dealing particularly with farmers and their problems in Northern Ireland. Before, part of my remit was to help deal with the problems of farmers in Scotland. The danger, of course, in comparing the apparently similar difficulties is to say that the same geographical isolation, the same comparatively harsh climate, and
940
in many cases the same lack of alternative enterprises for farmers, require similar solutions. That I shall resist.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, reminded me, if not the House, that he and I were in the same house at Eton and he said he did not know whether he was my fag. It seems, therefore. that I must have been a benign fagmaster. Well, I cannot remember either, and therefore he at least must have been less repulsive than some small boys. At any rate, through both of our characters, it would seem that Henry Mulholland's school days were rather nicer than Tom Brown's.
Coming to this debate, I am very grateful to the Members of Sub-Committee D who have spoken, and I say that for two reasons. First of all it is very heartening for the officials in my department to have the advantage of the advice and the encouragement of a group of your Lordships who have the expertise and the experience which the Members of Sub-Committee D have. I have no doubt that their visit will stimulate considerable thought and discussion for the future. But I should also like to thank the noble Lords for the kind words they have said about the officials and the way in which they go about their duties. Again speaking personally, it is always to be welcomed if the way in which one carries out one's duties commends itself to people who come completely from the outside and bring to bear a fresh mind.
Noble Lords have raised a formidable number of points, which I will not be able to deal with all that extensively tonight without wearying the House. What I think I had better do is to deal with as many of them as I can, until I become hoarse and perceive that the House is looking bored, and I will then stop and continue by correspondence. I think that is probably the kindest and most effective way of going about my task of summing up the debate.
Matters were started, if that is the word, by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in a good agricultural manner when he asked about expenditure on brucellosis and tuberculosis. He is quite right that expenditure on brucellosis eradication in 1983–84 is expected to be less than in 1982–83 because the incidence of infection has been reduced to a low level. Tuberculosis infection has, unfortunately, not fallen quite so fast, and in an attempt to speed up eradication the frequency of testing has been stepped up. That will result in some initial increase in expenditure with regard to the detection of reactor animals.
The noble Lord went on to ask about storage of fresh food, and he raised the question of assistance for the storage of fresh food destined for processing. The Department of Economic Development's standard capital grants scheme, which is the equivalent of the regional development grant scheme in Great Britain, enables grants to be made towards capital expenditure incurred in carrying out what is called a "qualifying industrial process". The storage or preservation of fresh food would meet the criteria for assistance when it is directly linked to a qualifying process; in other words, storage accommodation used for fresh foods awaiting canning.
The selective grant assistance schemes administered by IDB are in principle more flexible, but grant-aid towards the cost of food storage facilities is likely to be

941
made available only where they enable significant export opportunities to be exploited or where again they form part of an integrated processing and manufacturing operation. Any such assistance would have to he individually negotiated and the level of assistance offered would be determined by the merits of the project, and in particular by the number of jobs it was expected to generate in the Province.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, went on to Class II and particularly the decrease of £77 million. That, as I tried to explain earlier, is mainly due to Harland and Wolff. Only a token provision has been made pending a decision on the level of funding in 1983–84. Loans to industrial undertakings in 1982–83 included a single large loan to Learfan, and provisions for 1981–83 and 1983–84 are of the same magnitude.
The noble Lord went on to ask about the Kinsale natural gas project. The up-to-date position is that my honourable friend will be meeting Mr. Bruton, who is the Minister for Industry and Energy in the Republic of Ireland, very shortly to conclude one way or the other negotiations for gas at Kinsale. I appreciate that the Northern Ireland gas industry cannot bear further delay and negotiations must be brought to a conclusion in the near future. It has not, up till now at any rate, been possible to secure from the Republic of Ireland a price for gas which would be a basis for development of a viable gas industry in Northern Ireland. Unless—and this is really what it comes to—the Republic can make improvements in the price offered there may he no realistic alternative but to reactivate the plans for the closure of the industry in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and several other of your Lordships made reference to employment in Ulster Television and, I think, a commercial radio station. I do not have the facts at my disposal. It would be unwise of me to make any comment. What I shall do is to study the remarks that have been made and then cause inquiries to be set in hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about lignite. The Government consider that 100 million tons of the Crumlin lignite deposit is proven; anything else involves speculation, and that of course involves any additional deposits which might lie beneath the bed of Lough Neagh. The Government have not yet received applications from the mining company for planning permission and mining licence. I believe that applications will come in the near future. I understand that the applications are likely to be in respect of a pilot pit.
The noble Lord asked about Harland and Wolff and the level of funding so far as 1983–84 is concerned. The noble Lord will appreciate that these are sensitive to the prospects of new orders. The total provision for 1983–84 cannot be finalised until certain of these are clarified. What the Government have agreed to do in the meantime is to provide interim funding to meet the company's requirements. A statement will be made as soon as a decision on the 1983–84 funding is possible The yard is continuing to search for new orders. Market conditions for bulk carriers and tankers are extremely depressed, as your Lordships will realise, and are likely to remain so. There is intense competition from the Far East for any type of ship
942
order. What I am saying underlines the necessity for the yard to make itself more competitive.
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Dunleath, referred—and I am flitting like a butterfly from subject to subject as, indeed, did they as they went from Vote to Vote—to agriculture and to silage effluent in particular. I must confess that I was surprised at the apparent amount of silage effluent which pollutes fresh water in Northern Ireland as compared with Scotland. But I must contain my surprise. The policy is to seek to educate farmers on the highly polluting potential of agricultural waste. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, was absolutely right in describing the highly corrosive and damaging quality of silage effluent. Those farmers who know, or ought to know, and who are persistent offenders, can be prosecuted, particularly if they are clearly negligent in fulfilling their responsibilities. Prevention of pollution is seen as the most appropriate means of meeting what is obviously a most unsatisfactory situation for agriculture. I think it is right to say in defence of the industry that the weather conditions this year, in particular, have been extremely adverse. I see the noble Lord is nodding, and I am comforted by that. I do not think one should altogether blame the farmers this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about tourism and what is apparently a large decline in the provision of grants to the catering industry. The reduced provision for accommodation grant in 1983–84 reflects the action taken in January 1981, following a review of policies and priorities in tourism, to suspend consideration of further applications for assistance under this scheme, which at that time operated on a non-selective basis. This has resulted in a progressive rundown in the amount of grant paid out under the scheme over the past 12 to 18 months. The scheme was re-introduced, but on a selective basis, in January of this year, and to date more than 300 proposals have been submitted to the Department of Economic Development, which is now considering them. The impact of these projects which are approved for grant will, in the main, not be felt in the current financial year.
Finally the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about Shorts and about Learfan. As regards Shorts, the noble Lord will know that the market for civil aircraft of all types remains quiet because of the economic recession. I suppose that any upturn will be dependent on an upturn in the world economy; in particular, the economy of the United States. Nevertheless, the market for commuter aircraft, which is the type produced by Shorts, is predicted to grow for the rest of the decade. The performance of Shorts to date has been encouraging. At the end of May, 11 SD360s had been delivered and the company had won a total of 46 orders and options from 40 operators for this aircraft.
As regards Learfan, development of that project continues satisfactorily despite some minor setbacks and some slippage in the scheduled dates. Type certification by the American Federal Aviation Administration is now expected by early 1984, with full airworthiness certification following within a further few months.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, courteously said that he would have to leave towards the end

943
of the debate. Since there are so many members of Sub-Committee D who have taken part in the debate, and in view of their interest, I will endeavour to answer some of the points which the noble Lord raised, particularly as some of them have been touched on by other noble Lords. First, there was the matter of the extension of the less-favoured areas. It is very much to be hoped that the proposals which are presently being considered by the commission will shortly be put to the Council of Ministers. But, obviously, until that happens I cannot give any guarantee on when the Council of Ministers will come to a firm decision.
The next matter concerns additional aid from public funds according to whatever it is that the Council of Ministers agrees. I remind noble Lords that the Government have made no commitment to provide additional aid from public funds for the extended areas. The areas which originally benefited from the United Kingdom schemes for disadvantaged hill areas continue to benefit under the European directive on less favoured areas, and that, of course, goes for the co-responsibility levy for milk producers.
I come now to what I call the intensive industries in agriculture, particularly the pig and poultry industries. Noble Lords will be aware that there was a successful negotiation of the transfer of 50,000 tonnes of wheat from intervention to Northern Ireland. The first tranche (perhaps "cargo" would be a better word) has arrived, I believe on 6th July, and 6,000 tonnes have been sold. Therefore, the Government are helping with the special disadvantages which are relevant particularly to the west of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and which affect feed costs. However, it would be unrealistic if I did not say that it is for the whole of the industry and the United Kingdom to come to terms with marketing problems, and to deal with them, and also to bring the supply and demand into some sort of balance. Unless I said that there would be a danger that this debate would not be balanced, either.
The point was made, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that there is bound to be considerable dissatisfaction about the drawing of the boundary line when and (I suppose I must say) if the new less favoured areas are agreed. What in fact he was asking for was some form of independent panel to consider appeals. It would be premature to make any announcement about representations on less favoured areas until the United Kingdom case has been finally decided in Brussels. I am bound to say now, with some experience in two parts of the United Kingdom. that this kind of trouble—and it is very troublesome for the individual farmer—is better dealt with on an ad hoc basis than by means of a highly formalised appeal structure. But I have no doubt that that is something which will be considered and which we shall have to go into in the future.
The noble Lord also asked about marketing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, when, in his previous existence, he was Minister of Agriculture, provided the encouragement and the funds for the formulation of the Food from Britain campaign. That organisation has got off to an extremely good start. It is presently determining its strategy for the use of these funds. I know that it is
944
going to pay particular attention to the special problems of Northern Ireland in marketing food and food products, and I look forward to renewing those contacts with the organisation which I had in my own previous existence.
The noble Lord asked about the increase in the proportion of agricultural land when the extension comes about. My information is that 487,000 hectares in Northern Ireland are presently included in the less favoured areas. The extension would add a further 335,000 hectares, so that then approximately 75 per cent: of the agricultural land area would be covered. I resist the tempation to debate with the noble Lord the proportion of Northern Ireland as opposed to Scotland. It is my experience that different parts of the United Kingdom apparently steal a march on each other when it comes to helping their farmers. But it is inadvisable to discuss one particular type of apparent advantage.
The noble Lord asked whether it would be possible to set up a contingency fund for commodities which might run into crisis. There are so many rules which prevent that. To illustrate that, our normal accounting rules would forbid it: the European Community constraints on state aids would also forbid it, as, I think, would public expenditure priorities. Support for potatoes, for instance, is not a matter in which the European Community engages except in the lightest of regimes. It is in any event a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and is not carried on the Northern Ireland Vote.
The noble Lord also asked about road fund tax and roads. Vehicle excise duty was £42 million in 1982–83 and it is expected that in 1983–84 £47 million will be received. If a comparison were made (and I think it is mildly dangerous to do so) the amount estimated to be spent on road maintenance in 1983–84 is £41 million. But there is no direct relationship between these figures, and nor is there any connection with the cost of building the Foyle Bridge. It is the task of the Secretary of State to draw up spending programmes and their priorities when he knows the total allocation for Northern Ireland. That total allocation is set during, and as part of, the examination of United Kingdom spending programmes as a whole.
The noble Lord also referred to the suggestion that gas from coal would be a cheaper alternative to natural gas from Kinsale. A paper recently circulated by the National Coal Board claimed that a coal gasification plant to provide a supply of gas for Belfast only would be viable. My honourable friend is having that claim urgently assessed by independent experts. Of course until he receives a report from his experts. neither he nor, certainly, I is in a position to comment on whether the National Coal Board's proposals do in fact represent a properly worked out and realistic basis for a viable gas industry for the Belfast area.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked about extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There is a facility for having arrest warrants backed by courts in the Republic, but a number of suspected offenders wanted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary have not been extradited under this procedure on the grounds that their offences were politically motivated. I think that we must hope that the recent decision by the Irish Supreme Court to

945
extradite Dominic McGlinchy will mean that there will he fewer refusals in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked—
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for his very full reply, but can he just say whether Her Majesty's Government will give an assurance that they will confirm their contribution towards the cost of the less favoured areas so that the European Agricultural Commissioner, as he said, will be able to continue and confirm the extension of the less favoured areas?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have already told the House of the attitude of the Government to the extension of the less favoured areas and any possible funding. There is no connection between the two so far as the Commission is concerned. It is the Commission's duty to produce the proposals and it is the duty of the Council of Ministers to pronounce upon those proposals. Further than that I cannot and will not go.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked about additionality. In the final analysis, Northern Ireland benefits from all receipts. There are two categories of receipt: those which are passed on as cash additions to Northern Ireland recipients and those which are retained by the Government and shown in annual Supply Estimates as appropriations in aid. The former category represents a substantial amount and provides very real and direct benefit to recipients, while receipts in the latter category permit a higher level of public expenditure than would otherwise be feasible. But in general the treatment in Northern Ireland of receipts from the European Community is the same as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The anticipated level of receipts is taken into account when decisions on public expenditure allocations have been taken: and therefore those receipts enable the level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland to be higher than would otherwise have been possible.
I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Mottistone had to say about sea transport. That is a difficulty to anybody in business. It affects those in Northern Ireland and of course in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I can say to my noble friend at this juncture that the Commission is shortly to review all the measures in the Community which assist or improve agricultural structures. I have no doubt that both at official level and when the matter is being discussed in the Council of Ministers we shall ensure, as has been ensured in the past, that the problems of agriculture in Northern Ireland are fully understood by our Community partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Mais, asked me about the university. I bear in mind that he has an honorary doctorate of science at the New University of Ulster, so it behoves me to be careful in what I say, I fancy. The detailed reasons, as he will know very well, for the merger were spelt out in the Government's document, Higher Education in Northern Ireland: Future Structure.In essence, the Chilver Report, to which the Government's paper was a response, identified major problems of financial and academic inability being faced by the university, and indicated that these problems would become more serious with the advent
946
of the downturn in numbers of 18 year-olds in the late 1980s and early 1990s and the likelihood of a continuation of reduced levels of funding for higher education. The Government's view, which is shared by the University Grants Committee, was that there was no other feasible course of action which would guarantee a future for university level education on the Coleraine campus. The new institution will, by virtue of its size and the detailed planning of its provision, be able to meet any foreseeable downturn in demand or finance and to meet the changing needs of students in the next two decades. I have noted the noble Lord's other comments.
I think that I have dealt with most, if not all, of the points which have been raised. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked why special expenditure support cannot be permanent and thereby give more certainty to the industry. The clue lies in the use of the word "special". The needs of the industry change from year to year. One cannot speculate as to the future. Support arrangements provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, and indeed the Community, are subject to change. Each year we have to work within the overall Government expenditure policies and our assessment of the relative priorities within Northern Ireland.
Judging from the various speeches which have been made, I believe that all noble Lords realise the amount of money which, very properly, is being devoted to Northern Ireland and its problems to try to carry out the various priorities which the Government have established and to which I referred at the beginning of my opening remarks. I very much hope that this debate will reassure the House that those priorities continue, and that the Government are determined to carry them out. For myself, I regard the debate as being extremely valuable. I shall look with close attention at the Official Report and I know that thereafter my education will have been most considerably advanced.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Animals: Scientific Procedures
7.1 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that their proposals in the White Paper on scientific procedures on living animals (Cmnd. 8883) are meeting with a mixed reception, with some strong criticism of the so-called "pain clause" (paragraphs 24–26), "permissible purposes" (paragraphs 27–34), and "project licences" (paragraph 37), and what method of consultation they propose to follow to obtain the greatest measure of agreement on these important and sensitive parts of the White Paper.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. First, I believe that I should welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who, if I am correct, is on the Government Front Bench for her first major assignment in your Lordships' House since her recent appointment. She has exchanged her accustomed seat and her freedom for the dicipline of where she now sits. Henceforth she will find herself uttering

947
ministerial pronouncements on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, enslaved by departmental policies and procedures, but nevertheless enjoying it very much: at least I hope she does.
Just before the election there was published a long awaited White Paper dealing with scientific procedures on living animals. We had been waiting a long time for this White Paper. We knew that there had been a brake on progress by the work being done in the Council of Europe on a draft convention of some importance to all the European countries. Although we were impatient, we understood about the delay in the Council of Europe while so many different viewpoints were reconciled in order to get an agreed draft convention. I think that the election coming on rather earlier than was expected must have put very heavy pressure on the Home Office to get the White Paper out before polling day. After all, it was important that the Government should be seen to be doing something to fulfil the election pledge given on this subject in 1979, when they said that they would up-date the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 dealing with this matter. They got the White Paper out just in time. This is a notable landmark on the way. It is not of course the finished product. We still await a Bill, and it is to that Bill and preparations for it that my Question relates.
Much work has gone into the White Paper, and I must pay tribute to the care and attention that must have been given to what is a very complex subject by those who were responsible for preparing the document for the Government. There are quite a lot of good things in it, and they are very welcome. But I think the main point is, now we have the White Paper, what do we do with it? I must be careful not to convert a Question into an attempt at a full-dress debate on the White Paper. That would not be suitable for either the time or the occasion. But what do we do with the White Paper now that we have got it? In many cases where White Papers are issued Governments arrange for debates on them in order to gain an indication of the feelings of the House on the matters within the Papers. That procedure probably has become more conventional in relation to Green Papers rather than White Papers. Nevertheless, it is sometimes useful to test opinion in both Houses, if need be, on a complex and controversial subject before proceeding to the final preparation of a Bill.
So my present point is about procedure. What is the timetable? If we knew something of the timetable it would help to arrange the consultations that are needed in order to bring to bear on the final product as much agreed opinion as possible. The White Paper gives until 12th August for written representations to be submitted. With the interruption we have recently had, and the Summer Recess which is coming on, it is a difficult time of year to impose a short period during which representations can he submitted. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the various organisations and bodies representing animals and the scientific and commercial interests will do their best to get their papers into the Home Office within the timescale.
Well, what then? What is the Government's intention about the Bill? Most of us concerned with this matter were acutely disappointed to find nothing about it in the Queen's Speech. Whether this subject is
948
intended to be among those things referred to by Her Majesty in the phrase,
"Other measures will be laid before you",
I do not know. Is it the Government's intention to introduce a Bill this Session—this Session being an extended one which will go well into 1984? Are we going to get a Bill in this Session, or have we to look ahead to the 1984–85 Session? These are important questions, because upon the answers, or the approximate answers, will depend probably the timescale for consultation. I hope that we are to get a Bill during this Session. To have to go into 1984–85 would be too long to wait for the culmination of so much work that has been done and preparation that has been made for fresh legislation.
This is a turning point in the history of scientific procedures on living animals. We do not want undue haste. We should rather have more time in which to do a good job than to have a scrambled job in order to fulfil a particular timetable. But I should be very glad if the noble Baroness would kindly tell us how she sees the programme.
On the assumption that there is a reasonable period—say, between now and the end of the year—for us to collect the voices on the various matters in the White Paper, how are the consultation and the consideration of the various points of view to be undertaken? It would be very odd indeed if after a White Paper which, so far as I am aware, has been formulated following no recent consultations with interested parties, and upon which there will be considerable differences of opinion, we proceed to a Bill without any further conversations with Ministers about it. It cannot all be done by correspondence. After all, we are part of the process of formulating legislation and proposals and we should expect to have consultations with Ministers at an appropriate stage.
In order to bring those consultations within reasonable compass, it would be desirable for the various groups of representative bodies, so far as possible, to begin to work together. That is why in the Question I have asked what method of consultation the Government.
"propose to follow to obtain the greatest measure of agreement on these important and sensitive parts of the White Paper",
to which I shall come in a moment.
I have strong connections with the animal protection movement or the animal welfare movement. It is a very difficult area for any reasonable person to try to operate because animals generate internal combustion in many human beings. All can tell from reading the newpapers from time to time how restive the animal welfare people can become. The noble Baroness is coming very close to an area where passions run high and emotions go deep. Out of it one has to try to rationalise opinions and to translate something into sensible legislation. This is the most difficult problem of all. To define in statute law some of the things that have to be defined will be extremely difficult. We know that the 1876 Act has worked, as is often said, because it has been so adaptable. It has allowed a wide area of adaptation to be followed to meet the flexible requirements of changes in scientific research and in many other aspects of scientific development.
I have written to the Minister asking if we can arrange something so that the animal welfare movement, to take it as one group, can be brought together for discussions with the Minister to state how it feels on several proposals in the White paper. Could the same thing be done for scientific and commercial interests? The Minister tells me that this is a little premature. His approach is to say, "Let us wait until we get the representations and see the measure of disagreement. We may be able then to decide better how to resolve the disagreements and get the largest measure of harmonious acceptance for the provisions of a new Bill". I agree with that. I am not trying to hasten the Minister before he is ready. I am preparing the way. It would be wise if he had an idea of how he was going to operate. This is very important.
What are these sensitive areas? I have referred to them. I do not propose to argue the merits of them. I wish merely to refer to them so that we know the kind of difficulties that we face. There are three in number—in simple terms, pain, permissible purposes, and public accountability. It is in that field that the main differences and difficulties about the proposed new Bill will arise. Take pain, for instance. How much? How severe? How long? Pain that endures? Prolonged pain? What is pain?
There are the questions of distress and suffering. We have been talking about pain for years. Many of us, in the meantime, have been feeling it. If, however, you are defining in the statute law what is permissible as to the amount of torture that can be inflicted on an animal for what are said, in the White Paper, to be the proper interests of man and animal, that is a proposition of considerable complexity and ethical importance. The White Paper does not take the control of pain beyond what is now the practice of the Home Office. That is not far enough.
If we are to enlarge the field of permissible purposes—that is what the White Paper does and is, indeed, what various advisers to the Minister have already proposed—we must relate the extension of the field of protection to the amount of pain that may be inflicted on those within it. If there is stronger control of pain, then the area of permissible purposes can be widened. If the control of pain is to be no more than it is now, then we are all in difficulties in extending the field of permissible purposes. That is the relation between those two.
The third area of difficulty is what we call public accountability. How far is the Home Secretary going to take responsibility and account to Parliament for what is done, a great deal of it at public expense and on behalf of man and animal. I know that the Home Secretary was a little reluctant to accept the proposals of the Select Committee on the Halsbury Bill when we proposed to assign to him responsibility for justification of some of the experiments that would be permitted under the protection of the new law.
I know that the Home Secretary may feel that he does not want to take on a load of accountability that may expose him unnecessarily to questions and debates in Parliament as to the exercise of his discretion or his judgment in matters of this kind. But who is going to decide what is justifiable in this difficult field of science and research? It is said that when
950
Queen Victoria was supporting the Bill that preceded the Act of 1876 she declared that it was her desire that we should control the sovereign state of science. Have we got a sovereign state of science within the secular state, the layman's state, the political state, the social state, the moral state? Is the field of science supreme and independent? Or is the public, through Parliament and through the Home Secretary, to have some control over what it does and what goes on within it? This is the issue of public accountability.
I think that I have said enough without arguing for or against them to suggest to the noble Baroness that, on the main areas (two of which can be regarded as connected) of pain, permissible purposes and accountability, we want a better Bill than the White Paper fore-shadows. That is the issue. I am sure that the representations that will come to the Home Secretary will indicate pretty clearly that there is a strong desire for that.
Looking at the situation, the prospect of difficult representations coming forward and the need to narrow gaps and differences, so far as possible, between one interest and another—without reconciliation, a Bill will have to be bulldozed through Parliament in extremely difficult circumstances in order to get something on the Statute Book at all—I would respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that it is better that the legislation should start in your Lordships' House than in another place. This is probably where a Bill of this complexity and this difficulty could better begin, with consideration being given to it by Members of your Lordships' House who served on the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I myself and other noble Lords, who served on the Select Committee, have gone through the drill on this Bill probably more intensively than anyone else in Parliament. With all the expert help and wisdom available in your Lordships' House, we might put a Bill in better shape to send to another place than another place could do to send here. I leave that idea with the noble Baroness.
Therefore, I conclude by saying that in the end we must resolve what can be tolerated in the form of suffering by living animals in the proper interests of man and animal. This is a very difficult judgment to make. That is why I plead that there should be the maximum attempt at a reconciliation of differences of opinion, in order that in the 18 months ahead we can get a Bill which will be a most significant sequel to the 1876 Act, which has never been amended in a single particular from the day it was passed through Parliament until tonight. In those circumstances we embark upon an important job, and I urge the Government to take all possible steps to make a thoroughly good job of it.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for having asked this Question in the House tonight at a time when we certainly should be considering the White Paper. Of course, we are also extremely grateful to him for his work on this particular subject over the years. He is one of those who has helped to bring the status of animals and their welfare

951
into the centre of politics, and I cannot but think that that has been a good thing. We welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to the Front Bench to deal with this matter. Her views on whether it is a good thing that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has brought the matter into the centre of politics may be sightly different—I do not know. Nevertheless, I am sure that she will deal with the matter with her usual competence and good humour.
However, it has come into the centre of politics because it has come into the centre of people's consciousness in this country. A leader in The Times Higher Educational Supplement said recently:
"No longer is it possible to smile politely while raising a metaphorical eyebrow when animal rights are defended, and then to steer the discussion into more 'sensible' channels. Nor is it possible to discuss animal rights as an interesting and important, but essentially long-range and rather theoretical, ethical speculation. It has become clear that this is an issue on which very many people, although confused, are also deeply disturbed."
If they are deeply disturbed, it is something of which this House and another place should rightly take notice; and if they are confused, it is something on which your Lordships' House, in particular, may be able to help.
Over the years, particularly since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have had a growing divorce from our roots—from the countryside, from growing things and from the rest of the animal kingdom. It has been bad for our animals; it has been had for ourselves. But I think that we are now having a reaction. That reaction is shown by the general public opinion to which I have referred, and we now know that the arguments which used to be thrown out so easily, putting down people who protested about the way in which some animals were treated, will no longer do. For instance, we now have polls to show that people are prepared to pay higher prices for food which is produced in less cruel ways. I think we also have sufficient evidence that people realise they can buy all sorts of other things—including health, and certainly including cosmetics and probably a great many other things—at too high a price by way of the suffering of animals.
In this matter it seems to me that as legislators we should be in accord with public opinion, perhaps leading but basically in tune with what people think. This means setting up a flexible machinery which will respond to the feeling of our democracy on this particular matter. By "a flexible machinery" I do not mean something that will respond to every particular scandal which is raised in one of the more popular papers, but a general determination to make the people who produce our merchandise, and also our scientists, the servants of society as well as of knowledge.
Our ethics demand—and I think particularly our Christian ethics demand—that if we do evil (and the infliction of pain is in itself certainly a form of evil) it should be for an end that can justify it. It is often thought that the end does not justify the means, and should not be allowed to justify the means. That, of course, is complete nonsense. As we know, every time we have any form of surgical operation performed on ourselves or our loved ones harm is done and pain is inflicted in order that good should come about.
952
Therefore, in trying to frame the limits within which our work on this matter should take place, we have to set certain levels that should not be exceeded. Pain should not be inflicted beyond certain levels unless that particular pain can be justified. This was very well put in the paper produced by the British Veterinary Association and others in their paragraph 6, headed, "Pain, Anaesthesia and Analgesia". They said:
"If a procedure is likely to cause pain, suffering or distress of more than momentary duration or trivial intensity, which cannot be alleviated, prior authorisation by the Secretary of State should be obtained. Such authorisation should only be given when the procedure is judged to be of exceptional importance in meeting essential needs of man or animals".
That was not produced by any extremists group; it was produced by some very responsible people, including the vets, for whom in this field we all have the highest regard. As far as one can see, it has been largely ignored in the White Paper. That is where I should most like to support, both personally and on behalf of my party, the plea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, tonight.
There is one other minor point which I should like to mention before I sit down. We have, as I said, spoken about the stringent controls on cosmetics. In the White Paper they have been selected for particular attention. I am just the slightest bit cynical about this because, as we know, the cosmetic argument (and I have deployed it in my time) is a very easy one to deploy. These days cosmetics are regarded, to quite a large degree, as frivolous and not as an essential in the lives of anyone, and, therefore, they can be taken out and used as an example of something where certainly no kind of animal suffering should be encouraged. But between the work that is done on diseases, where there is very wide agreement that animal experimentation is justified, and the other extreme of dealing with cosmetics there is a whole range of other matters which need just as much attention, just as much testing and just as much weighing up as to whether the pain to which we submit animals is justified.
If a washing up liquid is being tested in order that I can buy it more cheaply and in order that when I wash up, it cleans my saucepans rather more quickly, that is just as much an object which should be weighed in the balance against the pain which animals have to put up with in the production of that better washing-up liquid as is the case with a lipstick or any other form of cosmetic. The cosmetic target is an easy one, and it is not really a worthy one. We need a much better judgment across the whole level of products.
What I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and certainly I and a great many other people are asking for generally is no more than what would be recognised as reasonable by the great majority of people. There are, of course, a handful of bigots on both sides. There are a handful of bigots who think that nothing else is more important in the world than the stopping of pain for bunny-rabbits, and there are a handful of bigots who think that science is such a god that it must be pursued, and that truth and facts must be pursued no matter what pain is caused on the way.
Both those views are rejected by the great majority of people in this country. I think that is entirely clear. Therefore, what the people of this country are surely asking from the Government in producing a new

953
scheme is flexibility; is procedures which will allow the pain inflicted on animals to be tailored to the needs and to the urgency of what must be achieved. I hope that in answering this Question and in finally drafting their Bill the Government will let the common sense and compassion of the ordinary man have their say in this matter.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I begin by apologising to your Lordships' House for the fact that I cannot remain to the end of this debate, and in particular to the noble Baroness. Lady Trumpington, because I shall not be here to listen to what she says in summing up. I shall read with great care what has been said. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the way that has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for having drawn the attention of your Lordships' House to this White Paper.
At the same time may I also say that I greatly welcome the Government's White Paper. I think that it sets a very good stage for the introduction of new legislation for which so many of us have been hoping for so long. None of us was alive when the original Act was passed by this House, hut, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I am not surprised that it has taken so long to get to the point we have now reached. I know I am no exception here in caring about the welfare of animals, except in so far as I did once have a licence to do animal experiments under the 1876 Act. It is many years since I 'surrendered it, but let me assure your Lordships that I was aware when I was first allowed a licence by the then Home Secretary—this takes me way back; I shall not attempt to hazard a guess at the number of years—that there was much public disquiet. There has always been public disquiet about inhumanity to animals.
I am aware, too, that there have already been many attempts to improve the Act as it now is. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, knows why it has been so difficult to get to the position we have now reached, which I think is a major step forward. As a naturalist as well as a scientist, and in my long association with the Zoological Society of London, about which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, knows full well, and he and I have also had friendly exchanges about the question of badgers—I have always been concerned that only the best and most humane procedures should be tolerated not only in the conduct of experiments in which animals are used but equally in the conditions in which any animals are kept—any exotic animals, any domestic animals. However, that is a separate issue and I shall not dwell on it. The Government have already taken some useful steps to see that the worst practices are held in check.
At the same time, I have been conscious of the difficulty of passing a new Act to update the legislation under which experiments on living animals are now being conducted. That is why I more than welcome this Government's White Paper. It is a major step forward. While I join with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in hoping that in subsequent discussions which relate to whatever Bill is laid before your Lordships' House we shall have a full opportunity to consider all the matters to which he has referred, and I would myself add certain others on the basis of my
954
experience of having been a working scientist under the Act, your Lordships should not be unaware of what is stated in paragraph 8 of this White Paper. It is most important.
It is those fundamental inquiries which this Act permitted that underpin the knowledge on which we secure the health not only of ourselves but also of our livestock and of the exotic animals that may be kept, I hope always in the right conditions. As the White Paper says, there are many and essential inquiries which would not be possible without the use of animals for the purpose of research.
I shall not spell out what is said in the paragraph. It is only too obvious to your Lordships that many and essential inquiries would not be possible without the kind of experimentation in which animals are being used by responsible and proper scientists. There may be some improper use, and I agree with Lord Houghton's fears in this matter. The son of a very great Member of your Lordships' House, of a great experimental biologist, will be speaking after me. The knowledge which he gained underpins our entire understanding of the operations of the nervous system.
Obviously the White Paper is only a prelude to the introduction of new legislation. And clearly, too, while it pays tribute to all the various inquiries that have been made in the past about the improvement of the 1876 Act, and the inquiries which Her Majesty's Government undertook in the preparation of this White Paper, I assume—and I am certain that I assume correctly—that Her Majesty's Government will be consulting further in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, implied is so essential with the various bodies concerned; both those whose activities are dependent upon the use of animals in research, and those concerned that the unnecessary use of animals is prevented.
It is clear—and I say this without qualification—that no experiments should ever be allowed that do not satisfy whatever criterion about pain—a most difficult criterion, we all know, to establish—is laid down and becomes law. It is not only pain, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. We have to be quite clear about what are permissible purposes. He rather lost me when he spoke about public accountability, because I did not quite know which particular public he was going to turn to, and who was going to be responsible for the Government in taking advice on that matter of accountability. However, this is an issue to which I am certain he will return, when, as we all hope, a Bill is laid before the House and that Bill comes up for its Second Reading and then for the Committee stage.
I am confident that, in the preparation of a new Bill, close attention will also be paid to the respective functions of the Home Office and its inspectorate and to the duties and responsibilities of the Home Secretary's advisory committee and of what I understand is likely to be its successor body, the Statutory Animal Procedures Committee, to which reference is made in the report. I became aware only this afternoon, after I had spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, during the course of proceedings in your Lordships' House, that these various papers had already been submitted. I had not seen them. Indeed one was put into my hands as I walked into the Chamber this evening. These various

955
submissions have been made by bodies that have an interest in the subsequent deliberations on the Bill.
I fear that there may be differences; indeed, some have been indicated already in matters of detail, but there is an enormous measure of agreement with the Government's White Paper, and in what those who are concerned and what the public want. We should emphasise those areas of agreement and try to put into proper perspective the small differences in detail which will have to be debated fully in your Lordships' House.
As is stated in paragraph 16, the Home Secretary will be required to consult the new committee on animal procedures before formulating the standard conditions to which all licences will be subject and before granting project licences in particular. I suppose it would be administratively impossible, or certainly very difficult, to consult the procedures committee about every application for a licence which the Home Secretary receives. In its advice, therefore, the committee has a very difficult role to play. It can hardly impose stricter conditions than those now embodied in the Council of Europe conventions.
Equally the eminent individuals who, according to the White Paper, will be appointed by the Home Secretary "in a personal capacity" will have to recognise—I speak as a scientist—that very rarely, if ever, does the course of any scientific inquiry proceed from a clear starting point to a pre-determined goal. In the course of any work which is undertaken by a good scientist, observations will emerge which may reveal a new and different goal and may certainly qualify the goal that the experimenter had in mind at the start. More than that, they may even indicate that the wrong questions had been put at the beginning of the inquiry. A degree of flexibility, therefore, is essential in the conduct of research. This is something that I trust the advisory body, or bodies, to whom the Home Secretary and his officials will be turning, will bear in mind. If they are the kind of people I hope they will be and people in whom, I trust, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will have confidence, they will recognise this fact.
I do not propose at the moment to touch on the difficult question of confidentiality which surrounds so much of the applied work done by pharmaceutical firms and equally—this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—the firms which produce cosmetics, which are in such demand in the market place. Much more important is the point that came up in the previous debate on Ireland to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred—that of food processing. We have to recognise that in food processing and distribution, this country, including Ulster, is totally urbanised. We depend entirely upon processed food. We depend on food which contains food additives, which may be preservatives or additives of a different kind. It is unthinkable that those who are responsible for seeing that the country is truly and properly fed should be inhibited from making quite certain that what is purveyed has been properly tested.
However, these are all matters that will emerge at the Second Reading of the Bill, which I hope the Government will produce soon. I am sure that my
956
noble friend Lord Houghton will use all his influence to see that this is done without too much delay. These are matters which will come up and in which most of us will have a part to play. We shall certainly be extremely interested. All I need now say in conclusion is that, whatever their interests in the matter, everyone should be pleased that the nettle has at last been grasped and that new legislation to control the use of animals in experiments will in due course be introduced.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House will be very grateful, not for the first time, to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for allowing this very important debate to take place, whatever conclusions some of us may reach in the long run. I should like at the outset to offer my congratulations—it is the first time I have had the opportunity of doing so—to my noble friend Lady Trumpington on her elevation to the Front Bench, I am sure that the House will recognise that she will treat this matter with sympathy and conviction which always marks her contributions.
We have at least two very distinguished scientists taking part in the debate—the noble Lords, Lord Zuckerman and Lord Adrian. I intervene briefly for two reasons, albeit at a late hour. First, I have served on a hospital committee for a number of years. In mental health particularly, drugs have to be used which involve the use of animals. Also I am a member of the all-party parliamentary Chemical Industry Committee, though I am neither a scientist nor a chemist. I have visited a number of pharmaceutical establishments in this country and at least one large one in one of the EEC countries. I have seen for myself one or two of these experiments taking place.
I would make the general point that if one compares the experiments which are carried out in this country—and, in such experience as I have had, those in the EEC—with the types of experiments carried out in some of the countries in the Far East (pictures of which have appeared in some of the tabloid newspapers), while in no way allowing apathy to creep in here, I believe our record has much to be commended.
It is a relief that the White Paper has at last appeared, the first since 1876. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, when he presses the Government for an early Bill. It may be that a full-scale debate—and it is a great pity that this vital question comes on at such a late hour—on the White Paper will be needed before the Government produce a Bill. Even if it does not appear in the next 15 months, I would urge the Government to press on and at least to let us have one in as short a time as possible. It is not an easy matter on which to legislate. Even those of us who are not scientists recognise this. The thing has to be got right.
If I may comment briefly on one or two paragraphs in the White Paper, undoubtedly paragraph 30, on cosmetics, is the one which causes the most concern. If, as I understand it, animals are going to be used for experiments on cosmetics, I would hope that this would be confined as far as possible to skin diseases such a psoriasis and impetigo. These are distressing

957
conditions and anybody who has suffered from them or who has seen people, and particularly children, who suffer from them will recognise this. It is my belief that these are the only justifications for cosmetic experiments. I cannot, certainly at this moment, think of any others; but I believe that these are important matters. But this is obviously something which will have to be discussed very fully when the White Paper is more fully debated.
The question of supervision, I believe, is very important. So far as I am aware, the Home Office inspectorate can visit any laboratory without prior notice. This should certainly be the case. It is absolutely essential that this should be done and I am very glad to see in the White Paper that there is planned a tightening up of the scandalous state of affairs where stolen pets are picked up and sold to laboratories. Of course, it would be very naive to expect a complete assurance that no stolen pets find their way there, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give a guarantee that the Home Office inspectorate, or whoever will be dealing with this matter, will make quite sure that this provision is carried out to the letter.
This is an emotive subject. I think that we would all wish that experiments on animals could be discontinued. What is absolutely vital is that experiments should be humane, and be seen to be humane, and that, wherever possible, the absolute minimum use of experiments takes place. In conclusion, I believe that this White Paper is a considerable step forward. Once again, I hope that legislation will emanate from it very quickly because this is a matter of considerable seriousness and urgency.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has asked a very timely Unstarred Question and I think we are all grateful to him for doing so; as, indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Zuckerman and Lord Auckland, for the things that they have said about this in their speeches. In his Unstarred Question Lord Houghton indicated that the Government White Paper had a mixed reception. I do not think that that is in any way surprising in view of the very many interests that it had to satisfy. I would have expected Lord Houghton to be critical of some of the proposals in the White Paper, although I had hoped—and my hope was not unfounded—that some of the proposals would meet with his approval.
For myself, I should like to say that I believe that the Government's proposals are mostly along the right lines and that such problems as remain should not be insuperable. Indeed, I believe that that is the opinion of scientific and industrial interests. Although we have waited, patiently I hope, for this White Paper, in terms of the result I think that the waiting has been very well worth while. I should like to congratulate the Government on having squarely faced the dilemma of this extremely contentious matter.
If they can in the end devise new legislation which will, in the words of the White Paper, give better protection to animals without—and I repeat, without—prejudicing benefits to man or animal which
958
flow from the use of animals by scientists, all reasonable men will be grateful. I think that that would be a worthwhile achievement and one to which I believe this White Paper points.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has singled out three issues in his Unstarred Question: pain and permissible purposes and public accountability. Although he considered the timetable of legislation primarily, I should like to speak briefly on two of these. On what has become known as the pain condition, it has always been my belief that the administrative application to licences of a condition limiting pain and suffering is the best course to adopt. I very much welcome the Government's intention to continue this course. I do not doubt that it has been applied without exception to all licences since 1929 and I do not doubt either that in general it has been very effective.
But I wonder whether there are some procedures, which will come under the new proposed legislation, which will in fact stretch present interpretations of the pain condition. To continue, as before, applying it to every licence could, I believe, give rise to the worry that either the pain condition could, under some circumstances, relatively rarely, be ignored or that, in practice, the definition of "severe pain" has been set out unreasonably high. It seems to me that more thought is needed in this matter and there might be greater reassurance for genuine public anxiety in a system where the few necessary exemptions were noted and justified than in a system which simply denies that severe and enduring pain is ever allowed or could ever legitimately be allowed.
I am wholly in agreement with what has been said: that unjustifiable pain should be avoided as far as is humanly possible. The difficult question—and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, stressed its difficulty—is where it becomes unjustifiable. That is the question that we have very seriously to address. I have no quarrel with the list of purposes for which procedures will be permissible; nor do I agree that it is widely increased in such a way that there will be an increase in painful experiments.
However, I am glad that paragraph 32 makes it clear that important scientific work may not always have an immediately identifiable application. This makes it imperative that addition to knowledge and scientific research is an important permitted purpose. But—and here I speak personally, perhaps—with respect to teaching I find the Government's attitude perplexing, and especially on the particular matter of teaching physiological sciences to medical students and B.Sc. students, which is what I have been involved in for most of my career. It appears that to do any practical work for students involving animals will need personal licences—for which, incidentally, a fee may be charged. But I am not clear whether teaching such students will be an allowable project.
In recent years, under the 1876 Act, the conditions under which such students can do non-recovery work on anaesthetised animals have become very restricted, and the proposals in the White Paper do not appear, in my view, to improve the situation. I would hope that the Home Office could take further advice from those concerned with teaching medical sciences and

959
reconsider their rejection in paragraph 40 of the White Paper of the recommendations on student licensing which have been more or less unequivocal and consistently dealt with by the Littlewood Committee, the Select Committee on the Halsbury Bill and their own Advisory Committee.
Central to the Government's proposals, I believe, is the new licensing system, and the approach of personal and project licensing is one of many possible systems. It has many merits, but I believe it has dangers, and one's ultimate judgment will depend upon the way it is administered. Licence holders have learned to rely on the wisdom and good sense of the inspectorate, and will no doubt be able to do so in the future. Indeed, I believe the inspectorate has carried out its difficult task with great skill and understanding. Under the new proposals project licences will have to be allowed by the inspectorate and, if asked, by the new statutory Animal Procedures Committee, and the administrative practices of the inspectorate and the committee will be crucial.
In that context it is reassuring that the committee, as well as the inspectorate, will have the necessary scientific expertise, but the powers of the inspectorate and the committee could be used (I do not say they would be) deliberately or inadvertently to restrict the freedom of the scientist to decide the direction of his work, and even a committee of fair-minded men is not infallible. I believe that no Government should lightly take away an existing freedom. I would hope that in the terms of reference of the Animal Procedures Committee they might be warned against the temptation to direct the course of a scientific inquiry.
Equally, I am convinced—and here I have to declare an interest since I am a member of the Home Office Advisory Committee—that that committee's recommendation in paragraph 65 of their report was the right one. We recommended there a mechanism for making representations by an aggrieved applicant against a licence refusal. The power to reject a project licence, and therefore to block a particular line of research, makes an appeal mechanism very important, and I believe that its absence from the White Paper is disturbing. I fully agree that scientists can reasonably be asked to offer justification for what they propose to do. Indeed. I believe that in practice this is very often what is done in applications today. But I believe that scientists ought to have the right to make representations to the Animal Procedures Committee in the case of a refusal to license a project.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked what methods of consultation the Government propose in order to obtain the greatest measure of agreement on these proposals in the White Paper, and I shall listen with particular interest, as I am sure we all shall, to the noble Baroness (whom I, too, am delighted to welcome to the Front Bench) when she speaks about consultation, because I know that industry and the scientific societies, including the Royal Society, would like to contribute to any further consultations. I hope that their thoughts and their anxieties will not go unheard. They are much affected by these proposals, and they have given very serious thought to the issues involved.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lord, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for giving the House yet another opportunity to discuss this important matter and to hear the views of her Majesty's Government. We are all indebted for his vigilance, perseverance and tenacity in matters of animal welfare. As other speakers have, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to the Front Bench. We hope she will show the same degree of independence in the future as she showed when she sat on the Benches behind the one on which she now sits. I have no doubt she will take note of the views of all noble Lords who have spoken this evening.
I believe the discussion we are having tonight is opportune in view of the long delays, to which reference has been made already tonight, in taking action to update the legislation of 1876, although there have been various small improvements from time to time. Indeed, paragraph I of the White Paper begins by saying that Her Majesty's Government will introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits. This seems rather slow progress in the light of the fact that, of course, the last Government were elected on the basis of a manifesto which promised:
"We shall update…the legislation on experiments on live animals".
So we hope there will be some time in this Session for action to be taken. As paragraph 2 of the White Paper says, "This will be the first legislation of its kind", when it comes, "this century". It seems now, 83 years afterwards, that we ought urgently to review, to repeal and to revise much that is out of date. The march of science is such that surely many living animal experiments (now numbering about five million) are no longer necessary, and, where they are, there must be methods to by-pass some experiments and to ensure that pain and suffering are minimised.
Paragraph 3 of the White Paper is important. I am not sure whether there is something sinister about the reference to the United Kingdom's large pharmaceutical industry, when it says:
"The United Kingdom has a large pharmaceutical industry which makes a big contribution to our balance of payments and employs 67,500 people. In devising new controls it is very important not to put industry at risk unnecessarily".
This kind of comment makes one wonder whether there will be a proper balance of the interests of all concerned in this matter of animal welfare. The White Paper rightly states that the Government have a duty to safeguard the community from avoidable harm and to enable science to continue to make progress in saving life and alleviating suffering. This requires research and testing to proceed, but, of course, with adequate controls.
There is a great deal of controversy regarding what research is necessary and what should be allowed. That, of course, is one of the themes put forward by my noble friend Lord Houghton and by others. The Government may boast of legislation they have passed and of the wider opportunities it gives: but in this area, as in others, inadequate investment, insufficient research, lack of up-to-date techniques, insufficient inspectors (which is most important) and lack of enforcement makes legislation rather a mockery. I

961
understand that there are 15 inspectors to cover about 500 laboratories, so although legislation may require—and, indeed, the White Paper requires—that there should be adequate inspection and enforcement, this really depends on resources which the Government say in other connections they do not have. So, if they bring forward legislation, we hope that they will also provide the means whereby it can be really effective.
I was prepared to make some detailed comments on the three aspects which my noble friend used as the basis for his Question tonight. But some of those comments have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Zuckerman and Lord Adrian, in particular with their special knowledge and concern, so I shall just summarise some of my comments. On the pain clauses, the White Paper seems to give no indication about the progress being made concerning pain restriction. It makes great play of the fact that the draft European Convention allows exceptions to the pain condition, but it seems that those exceptions have not been allowed in this country.
Here again, as in all legislation, definition is most important on the aspects of these paragraphs. The Home Office has never satisfactorily defined the concepts of such words as "severely" and "enduring" in the sense of pain. It has been left to the researcher to interpret them, and the researcher would consult the Home Office inspector. But, as I said, in 1981 there were only 15 inspectors to cover 500 laboratories, which means that, to a large extent, the legislation is ineffective.
The other aspects of permissible purposes are important, and it has been suggested that the Government could have used the permissible purposes section as an alternative approach to controlling animal experiments, given that the pain approach is so vague, but they seem to have missed the opportunity. Of course, as others have mentioned, particularly obnoxious is the fact that experiments are still being allowed in the cosmetic and tobacco industries. It may still be true to say that smoking can endanger your health, but it also endangers the health of animals.
With regard to project licences, paragraphs 37 and 38, in theory paragraph 37 is an improvement. At present, a researcher applies for just one licence which covers both him and his experiments. To obtain a licence, a researcher approaches the Home Office inspector for advice on his application and then sends an application to the Home Secretary. The licence usually lasts for a number of years. Now the Government propose that two licences be issued to cover a person and the other projects.
The weakness in this system is that the project licence must have a sponsor who must be either—as required in paragraph 38—a professor in the relevant discipline or some other person in authority. The sponsor must be acceptable to the Home Secretary, but the question arises: how is he chosen? One wonders what reaction there would be if the person concerned had some doubts about animal welfare experiments. But, in all these things, definition is a most important matter and there needs to be some tightening up of these aspects if any legislation is to be effective.
962
My noble friend rightly draws attention to the limited number of important aspects of the White Paper. However, we should not debate these issues in a vacuum and it has been essential for other noble Lords and myself tonight to widen the debate a little in order to get our perspectives. This has been greatly helped by the comments of noble Lords who have spoken from immense experience.
It would be helpful to the House, and indeed to many who are concerned in the country, if the noble Baroness could say what is the state of play since 1876. I shall not ask her to cover too long a period, but I notice that in another place on 19th November 1982 the then Minister, Mr. Raison, at col. 560 of the Official Report, when talking about the Government's programme and policy on this matter, said this:
"As soon as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had reconstituted the advisory committee on animal experiments in 1980, with wider terms of reference, he asked it to make a comprehensive study of the framework of legislation to replace the 1876 Act. The advisory committee presented its report towards the end of 1981 and that is an important factor in the Government's deliberations".
We have gone from 1981 and are now well through 1983, and it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could enlighten the House on the Government's intentions.
The Labour Party and many other bodies have produced detailed proposals and we believe that there is room for further consultation. This should not take too long, because a lot has already been said and written and we certainly need progress in the very near future. The Prime Minister's delight at espousing Victorian values has surely been helped by our use of legislation based on the concepts of the 1870s. But it is not good enough when we are going towards the 21st century and concern for animals should animate us all.
In the debate at about this time last night I quoted John Donne's memorable comment that,
"Every man's death diminishes me".
I believe it is equally true to say that the death of every man and the suffering and death of every living creature diminishes us all. I am sure that we await the noble Baroness's comments tonight to see what further progress may be made in ensuring less suffering for everyone.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I start by thanking all those noble Lords who welcomed me to this Dispatch Box. Actually they were wrong. This Question was pipped at the post by a Question earlier this week, so this is my second time here. But I am grateful for their kind remarks.
I recall with pleasure the collaboration between the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, myself and others which led to the preservation of the curlew during a debate last year. I cannot say that I have relished in the same way the prospect of replying to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, today. Partly this was because the subject matter is, unfortunately, not a heart-warming one and arouses so many violent passions that in any other place I should fear at the number of friends I might be losing and opponents gaining as soon as 1 opened my mouth. I would also

963
add that I feel I am responding to a Question which, with all respect, has been asked a little prematurely.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, comments upon the White Paper have been requested soon. As a matter of fact, the date is 12th August—not, perhaps, the most appropriate date in the circumstances. It also happens to be slap in the middle of many people's holidays and I understand that most of the responses so far have been requests for an extension of the deadline. So I suppose the simple answer to the noble Lord's Question is that the Government have very little formal idea of the reception the White Paper is getting. Therefore, I dispute his assertion of a mixed reception. The general election campaign may also have contributed to the general hush on its appearance. But the Home Office's ears flap widely and, one way or another, the Government were pretty well aware of the sort of criticisms mentioned by the noble Lord even before he drew them expressly to the attention of this House.
Not all that the Government have heard has been criticism. however, and I most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Zuckerman, Lord Adrian, Lord Auckland, and others, for their helpful speeches this evening. After all, the Government's proposals are similar in many respects to those put forward jointly by the British Veterinary Association, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation, of which the noble Lord is chairman, and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. There are some differences and, as the noble Lord points out, they are important ones; and they will undoubtedly continue to provoke criticism. But I think the fact that the White Paper has not been greeted by an outcry demonstrates, even allowing for the general election factor, that in many respects it has been well received and is seen by many people to represent a fair and sensible balance between the interests of science, industry and animals.
Before I deal briefly with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and others, I should like to answer his point about consultation. The Government are anxious to ensure the greatest possible measure of agreement, although it would be illusory to expect that we shall obtain unanimity. But, despite the range of anxieties which have been expressed here, I really do not think we shall have the full picture until comments have come in from the wide variety of interested organisations. It is only when we have them that we can decide exactly how best to proceed. All I can promise is that consultation will be of the fullest kind.
With regard to joint representation from animal welfare bodies, which was touched upon, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I cannot commit the Government to any particular form of consultation, but I think it must be obvious that little would be gained by talking to a lot of groups, supposedly representing similar interests, which all disagreed with each other. It is much easier if broad interest groups can reach agreed views, as the BVA, CRAE and FRAME did so successfully.
The first of the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was about the pain
964
condition. That point has been touched on by most speakers. As the noble Lord said—and I could not agree more—trying to decide what is the acceptable level of suffering which a sentient being without a choice should be asked to endure on my behalf is a horribly difficult issue. The Government's approach is to say, first of all, that no animal should be required to suffer anything at all unless there is no scientific alternative and unless it is one of the permissible purposes.
Having reached that point, the Government do not then think that it is possible or advisable to distinguish formally between types of purposes for which an animal should only be permitted to suffer a pinprick and those for which it may be required to undergo more prolonged or intensive pain or distress. It may seem easy to say that a new shampoo is worth much less suffering than a cure for multiple sclerosis, but it is not as simple as that in practice. If we were to attempt to grade work according to whether we thought it was useful, essential, urgent, exceptional, et cetera,we should be in grave danger either of unwittingly preventing a really important discovery because the research gave no promise of one at the outset, or of devaluing the grading by accepting that more or less everything was essential and exceptional. It is far better to say that work within the areas of permissible purposes may be carried out and then stipulate, as all licences do now, that no animal shall be required to suffer severe and enduring pain.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked whether the pain clause would be a statutory requirement and legally enforceable. That is very much a question for the lawyers. We have not yet made up our minds, but we shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, asked the Government to reconsider the question of an exemption to the pain clause. The Government were strongly opposed to the provision for an exemption which is contained in the European Convention. We cannot go back upon our stance. We cannot offer less protection to animals in the future than we have in the past. Our new legislation cannot be regressive. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, but I really do not think that researchers have been unduly inhibited in the past, nor need be in the future. The admission of only one or two exemptions in the legislation would, I am convinced, lead to the gradual erosion of the system protecting animals which has been so carefully built up and so scrupulously maintained.
With regard to the subject of permissible purposes, the main thing to say here is that, as the White Paper makes clear in paragraph 28, the list of purposes contained in the European Convention is only a basis for the Government and that they may have to modify some of them, possibly in the light of the comments we hope to receive by or shortly after 12th August.
I was interested by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, concerning the retention of cosmetics testing. I do not think I can usefully add to what the White Paper says on this issue. The main points are that the term "cosmetics", as defined in the European Directive with which we must comply, covers a wide

965
range of substances, not all of which are by any means trivial. There are very few cosmetic tests. I have the percentages from the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association. Only 0·56 per cent. of animal tests carried out in 1981 were for the cosmetics industry. Small as it was, this percentage represented a decline from 0·68 per cent. in 1980. The cosmetics industry has to guarantee the safety in use of such products as shampoos, toilet soaps and dentifrices which are likely to be in contact with eyes or skin or which could be swallowed. The industry has an absolute duty under the EEC cosmetics directive to market products which are safe in use.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness permit me to say that these percentages, small though they are, are considerable in terms of numbers? Some thousands of animals are involved in the 0.6 per cent. of the total number of animals involved. We are talking in millions. The number represented by a small percentage is rather greater than many people would imagine.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I give the percentages merely in order to show that from the point of view of the cosmetics industry this is a very small percentage in terms of actual experiments and that they have to carry out these experiments in order to protect themselves before they market new products which could be harmful.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, questioned the use of "unnecessary" products. Some of the same arguments I have just put forward apply to other goods which may not seem essential, in that they appear to duplicate existing products. What they offer may be an improvement. They may clean better or be less potentially harmful than other products on the market; or they may work significantly better for some people than available alternatives. Either these products are adequately tested or they fail to come on to the market altogether. That may not be a matter of great concern to your Lordships or to me, but we should not presume that nobody is concerned about it.
Turning to the subject of scientific research, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. Again, the White Paper really says it all. We cannot stop our research—or, rather, we can, but we do so very literally at our own risk. I could presume to wonder whether the two persons who recently had their arms sewn back on would have received the necessary medical expertise for this delicate operation had not a great deal of research involving animals taken place over the years.
Turning to the subject of public accountability, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, took me a little by surprise when he raised this issue, since the Question on the Order Paper refers to "project licences", not public accountability. But the two are in fact connected and I should like to comment on project licences, first because they were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and secondly because they are, I know, a matter of great concern to potential licensees. This is partly because we have been putting out feelers about the way in which the new system might work in practice. Because our own ideas
966
are not fully worked out, a certain amount of scepticism has been encountered. It is an area where we are very reliant upon consultation. We cannot just work out a paper scheme and thrust it upon people. The Government are well aware of the fears that laboratories will be filling out thousands of project licence application forms; that the new system will not be sufficiently flexible to cover changes of direction in research; and that the new sponsors will lead to breaches of commercial confidentiality.
All I can say is that officials are working to devise a system that will be practicable for both licensees and the inspectorate, while at the same time providing sufficient information for the Home Secretary to know what is proposed in every project—however widely or narrowly that has to be interpreted—and to be satisfied that it is justifiable within the limits of permissible purposes. When the Home Secretary is in that position, I believe that the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be allayed.
With regard to other points which have been raised, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, mentioned the subject of food processing. I do not wish to dwell on this matter. Suffice it to say that in some instances we have a clear duty to ensure that foods are safe, and this may involve tests of preservatives and the like on animals. My noble friend Lord Auckland commented on the role of inspectors; and the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, also commented on ineffective legislation concerning that same matter. The White Paper promises to increase the strength of the inspectorate, because of their new duties. It has been suggested that there are not enough inspectors to fulfil their role adequately. We should bear in mind that some 90 per cent. of experiments are carried out at about only 10 per cent. of registered places; and that the large-scale establishments are frequently inspected, usually without notice, so that inspectors really get to know what is going on in those places for which they are responsible.
I entirely reject the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that present legislation is ineffective and that the inspectorate cannot and do not exercise adequate control. I am happy to say that I believe the noble Lord is alone in that view.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, may I intervene very briefly?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I would much rather the noble Lord did not. As my noble friend Lord Auckland said concerning stolen pets, there are always allegations about stolen pets being used in laboratories. Proof of actual instances is very rare. At all events, the Government are anxious to take the maximum steps to prevent the possibility of such a traffic.
In reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, about appeals, the noble Lord urged the Government to give their views on an appeals system for licensees whose projects are refused. The Advisory Committee recommended some form administrative mechanism, not a statutory one, and so it is hardly surprising that the White Paper does not cover it. I very much doubt whether a formal mechanism will

967
prove necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, is aware, licensees keep in close touch with the inspectorate, which can advise on ways in which the work of the licensees can be modified to meet the requirements of the Act. It is therefore very unusual for a licence to be refused outright. In the same way, I doubt whether projects will often be refused, because the informal discussions which take place with the inspectorate will lead to adequate work being proposed and will enable the scientist to make his views well known to the inspectorate and, directly or indirectly, to the Home Secretary.
The last Government promised in their election manifesto that they would update the law, but work was delayed while the United Kingdom played a leading role in shaping the draft Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Vertebrate Animals, work on which was not completed until April of this year. The convention now awaits the approval of the Committee of Ministers. The United Kingdom will not be able to ratify it until new legislation has been introduced, and in fulfilment of their manifesto commitment the last Government announced their plans for legislation in the White Paper Scientific Procedures on Living Animals,published on 12th May, which we have been discussing this evening.
As I have already said, the Government are most anxious to obtain views from all relevant bodies. Consultations will obviously follow—and a Bill will come before your Lordships as soon as parliamentary time permits—but it is not for me to comment on when that start will be made.
While it is never possible to please all the people all the time, your Lordships can rest assured that the Government will do their best to ensure that future legislation will protect animals while at the same time permitting the necessary research to advance knowledge helpful to both humans and animals.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I assure her that we do appreciate the assurances she has given? However, the assurance that there will be more inspectors is not quite the same thing as an assurance that there will not be an inadequate number of inspectors.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before nine o'clock.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS INQUIRY
  FALKLAND ISLANDS INQUIRY
  MR. ALBRECHT AND MR. BUISSON: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN TURKEY
  MR. ALBRECHT AND MR. BUISSON: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN TURKEY
  THE CIVIL SERVICE MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
  THE CIVIL SERVICE MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
  METROPOLITAN POLICE C DEPARTMENT: COMPUTER FACILITIES
  METROPOLITAN POLICE C DEPARTMENT: COMPUTER FACILITIES
  PARLIAMENTARY VOTING: LORDS SPIRITUAL
  PARLIAMENTARY VOTING: LORDS SPIRITUAL
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY: REPORT NO. 20
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY: REPORT NO. 20
  OFFENCES: CHANGES SINCE 1979
  OFFENCES: CHANGES SINCE 1979