Sitting of 21 July 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  STAFFORDSHIRE BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.

  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Security
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland, particularly with reference to cross-border co-operation.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the degree of co-operation provided by the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the pursuit and apprehension of those accused of criminal offences in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation within the Province.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Since I last answered questions on 12 May, eight members of the security forces and four civilians have died as a result of the security situation in the Province.
    On 16 May a constable was murdered outside his home in Belfast and on 26 May a constable was shot dead while on duty outside Cookstown police station. A part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment was killed by an explosive device near Dungannon on 4 June and on 10 June a soldier on foot patrol was killed in a similar manner in Belfast. On 13 July four members of the UDR were killed when a bomb exploded under their vehicle in county Tyrone.
    The civilians were a milkman shot dead in Belfast on 26 May, a workman shot dead in county Tyrone on 27 June and two men whose bodies were discovered in a car in south Armagh on 13 July.
    548
    It is a tribute to the security forces that many of the attempts by terrorist groups to increase tension in the prelude to the general election failed and that a number of arrests were made. The RUC continues to have considerable success in bringing to justice those whom it suspects of terrorist type offences. So far this year 288 people have been charged with such offences, including 32 with murder, and 30 with attempted murder. Nineteen of the murder charges and 18 of those for attempted murder were made during the period since 12 May. 125 weapons, 31,780 rounds of ammunition and 1,707 lbs of explosives have been recovered so far this year.
    The RUC and the Garda continue to co-operate closely both in deterring acts of terrorism and in bringing criminals to justice. We shall continue to make it clear to the Irish Government that we believe workable extradition arrangements to be the best way of dealing with fugitive offenders, although we value the recent successes achieved under the extra-territorial legislation.
    Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that the whole House will wish to express its admiration for the sacrifices made by the security forces and the RUC. On Tuesday the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Republic of Ireland will be in London. During his visit, will my right hon. Friend mention the importation of weapons from the Republic into Northern Ireland and see whether control can be tightened by closer cross-border co-operation? For example, today there was a rocket attack in Londonderry, which was probably caused by an imported rocket.
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. There is another question on the Order Paper about the visit of the Republic of Ireland Minister for Foreign Affairs. I shall take every opportunity to impress upon him the need for maximum co-operation across the border, particularly with regard to weapons.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: May I, too, express my admiration for those who lost their lives and echo the words of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)? As four UDR men were so tragically blown up in a convoy last week, and as there have been similar instances involving Army convoys, is the Secretary of State satisfied that every effort is being made to pinpoint such traps before the event, perhaps by using increased air surveillance?
    Mr. Prior: I am satisfied that every effort is made to do so, by a variety of methods. The trouble is that there are an enormous number of culverts and it is extremely difficult to keep a watch on all of them. However, on several occasions recently the RUC and the security forces have successfully stopped those devices and retrieved a great deal of explosives which would otherwise have caused serious casualties.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there can be no real security for the Ulster people, who have suffered terribly for more than 14 years from IRA terrorism, unless and until the terrorist murderers are put behind bars and kept there for the rest of their natural lives? Will he re-examine the question of the remission of prison sentences for terrorists? Surely the half remission should be brought to an end.
    Mr. Prior: No terrorist who has been convicted of murder, except a man suffering from cancer, w ho was about to die, has been released since the present campaign

    549
    began. I have examined the 50 per cent. remission and the system of parole that operates in Great Britain as a possible replacement for 50 per cent. remission. I believe that we are right to continue with the 50 per cent. remission. There have been examples of men returning to terrorism, but there have been many cases of men who have reformed and behaved perfectly responsibly afterwards.
    Mr. William Ross: How many people who are being sought by the RUC in connection with terrorist crimes are believed to be in the Republic of Ireland? In how many of those cases has the RUC asked the Garda to arrest and return them?
    Mr. Prior: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he requires, because we cannot possibly know. The RUC asks for terrorists to be extradited. If the hon. Gentleman requires further information about that, I shall see what can be made available to him.
    Mr. Concannon: In view of the terrible list of events which the Secretary of State was obliged to read out once again, I should like to express the Opposition's gratitude to the security forces for the way in which they carry out their duties in Northern Ireland. As circumstances have changed in Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein has gone political, is the Secretary of State receiving expressions of condemnation by the new political party of acts of violence?
    Mr. Prior: Far from it; quite the reverse, in fact. That should not be lost on anyone who seeks the path of peace and anyone who supports Provisional Sinn Fein and wants to make a visit here. I hope that that message will not go unheeded.

    Provisional Sinn Fein
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will proscribe Provisional Sinn Fein.
    Mr. Prior: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State still agree with the assessment that was made some months ago by the then Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that senior members of Provisional Sinn Fein, including Gerry Adams, were involved in the commission of serious terrorist offences? If he does not, why is he still refusing to talk to them? Is it not the case that Provisional Sinn Fein forms the essential propaganda element in the terrorist campaign that is being waged in Northern Ireland, and is it not time that the Government declared this organisation illegal?
    Mr. Prior: My reason for refusing to talk to such people is clear, and I wish that this practice was followed by a good many others. Until people renounce violence, they should not be talked to. The problem arises when they represent the views of constituents. In those circumstances, there will be infrequent occasions when, as part of a deputation which perhaps consists of other Members of Parliament or Members of the Assembly, one has to see them. I hope that the clear message will go out from the House that while Provisional Sinn Fein acts unconstitutionally and supports violence, although no charges of violence can be brought against individuals, I hope that nobody will pay any attention to what its members say until they renounce violence.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Following the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), will he use his influence, following the example of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, to ensure that Provisional Sinn Fein is not given radio and television time, bearing in mind that that is the way in which it backs up its support for active terrorists?
    Mr. Prior: There is a difficulty in that regard, because we do not control who has television and radio time. If we did, I could perhaps go further and agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

    Republic of Ireland (Ministerial Meetings)
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he anticipates having during the forthcoming recess with the Government and Ministers of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has plans to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to hold discussions with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: I intend to meet the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Peter Barry, during his visit to London next week. I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In his dealings with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that their ideas of how Northern Ireland should be governed are designed to achieve a united Ireland? Will he also remember that what other nations regard as friendly relations, Dublin regards as mechanisms for proceeding towards that objective?
    Mr. Prior: I do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman in his assessment of what the Republic of Ireland regards as friendly relations with the United Kingdom. There are great advantages in having better relations—indeed, the best relations—between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I hope that when we meet Ministers from the Republic it will not always be thought that the constitution of Northern Ireland is likely to be changed, as that is not what is involved.
    Mr. Parry: When the Secretary of State meets Dr. FitzGerald, will he discuss the statement on Northern Ireland in the Queen's Speech? Will he state what steps he proposes to take to get the various groups in Northern Ireland involved in the work of the Assembly? If he does not, will it not be obvious that the Assembly is a white elephant?
    Mr. Prior: I do not agree that the Assembly is a white elephant. It is doing extraordinarily valuable work and many people recognise that. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends could help considerably by supporting the efforts that are being made to get the SDLP into the Assembly. There is no doubt that it would be a far better and more representative Assembly if the SDLP were playing a part there.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to follow my usual practice and call first those hon. Members whose questions are linked.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the continuing tragedy in the Province, when will the Government realise that there can be no successful initiative and no political settlement without the involvement of the Government of the Republic of Ireland? Are the reports that have appeared in The Guardian this week true? It is said that British Army chiefs have argued strongly against any concept of a united Ireland, on the somewhat dubious ground that it would be unsafe for Britain from a military point of view.
    Mr. Prior: I do not intend to enter into arguments that are raging in the Labour party. Good relations between the Republic and ourselves are important. That is in no way inconsistent with the right of the majority to remain part of the United Kingdom. We must find some way in which to enable the 40 per cent. or so who support the nationalist cause to identify with their feelings and traditional aspirations of a united Ireland. That is not in question at the moment.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that if the stance of not wanting discussions of any type with the Republic of Ireland—which is to be found on the Bench behind me — continues, there is no hope of solving the fundamental issue of what is happening in Northern Ireland?
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) said, is not the Assembly a failure? Its aim was to bring the two sides together, but the Catholic minority will have no part of it. In his discussions with the leaders of the Republic of Ireland, will the Minister seriously consider setting up a lasting forum such as an Assembly of Ireland to discuss, security, trade, industry and other matters, which will bring people together naturally? Does he agree that the policies of the Unionists are bankrupt?
    Mr. Prior: The proposals advocated by the hon. Gentleman would have precisely the opposite effect to that which he wishes to achieve. He could help considerably by trying to persuade the SDLP to play a part in the Assembly. The Unionists should also invite and encourage the SDLP to play a part in the Assembly, because that would be the first step to bringing the two sides together, which is essential.
    Mr. Arnold: Have the Government of the Republic of Ireland made any approaches to my right hon. Friend about the Irish Forum?
    Mr. Prior: No, they have not.
    Mr. Madden: In considering the future of the island of Ireland, will the Secretary of State examine the long and perceptive statement issued recently after the Irish conference of Catholic bishops? Is he aware that the statement contained many interesting items, including the fact that the scandal of our time was the great and growing gap between the wealthy few and the deprived? Will he draw attention to that statement and reflect upon it when he considers the future of Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: I reflect on many statements that are made by people of many different religions in Northern Ireland and in the island of Ireland. I am trying—I am not sure
    552
    that the Floor of the House is the best place to do it—to do as much as I can to enable people to live at peace with one another.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members believe that it is in Britain's interest to foster good relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? Does he also accept that while the political parties in Dublin discuss how they could politically adminster the affairs of Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of another independent sovereign state, many people will continue to be suspicious, not of my right hon. Friend, but of those who have aspirations towards that part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments, and I hope that my talks with Mr. Barry and others will help to dispel some of the false ideas that have crept in.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of a perceptive article in the Daily Telegraph this week, will the Secretary of State assure the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland that the House and the nation are not amused by the fact that the Forum has continued, especially as one part of that Forum refuses to take its place in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Will he confirm that 31 per cent., not 40 per cent., of the people voted for Republican causes, and that Roman Catholics are taking part in the Assembly and have given evidence to it?
    Mr. Prior: Several Catholics representing the Alliance party sit in the Assembly, and we welcome their role. I did not agree with much of the article in the Daily Telegraph.
    Mr. Adley: Did my right hon. Friend see the press reports earlier this week which alleged that, during discussions some years ago between the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the then Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Prime Minister said that the last thing he wished was a substantial change in the constitution if it involved a so-called British withdrawal from Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that we all want good relations, but that a forced marriage could be disastrous?
    Mr. Prior: Forced marriages are never successful. I shall not enter into discussions about what was said by former Secretaries of State in other Governments to Prime Ministers of other countries.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind in the forthcoming discussions, and in future similar discussions, that the British people will not always put up with the fact that any proposals to bring together all sides in the whole of Ireland are vetoed by one group in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that Parliament and the Government must take into account the interests and views of the entire British population, and that there should be an end to a veto that blocks negotiation and discussion on the future of the Province?
    Mr. Prior: Several people have the right of veto, but the wish of the majority must be respected. That does not alter the fact that the minority also have rights and aspirations which the House should take into account. I am trying to do that.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition would encourage him to talk to as many people and groups as possible, except those who advocate

    553
    violence, and that we would encourage discussions with the Government of the South? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, if we cannot get people together across the table we should adopt policies that will help them to grow together. I endorse my hon. Friend's suggestions.
    Mr. Prior: I always listen carefully to advice from all sections and from all parties in the House. The more the House speaks with a united voice, the more likely we are to make progress in Northern Ireland.

    Larne-Belfast Rail Link
    Mr. Beggsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Larne to Belfast rail link.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company are reviewing the financial requirements of the Province's railways over the next decade on the basis of a corporate plan prepared by Northern Ireland Railways. This review is designed to ensure that public transport resources are used as effectively as possible, and includes the operational activity of the Lame to Belfast rail link.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the absence of a cross-city link means that rail services in Northern Ireland are inadequate?
    Mr. Patten: The construction of the link must be determined in the light of our judgment of the effects of the recently-opened M1-M2 link on the city's traffic patterns. As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, I hope to travel on the Belfast to Lame line during the next few days.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister ensure that the review to which he referred includes consideration of the practicability and desirability of renewing the rail connection to Newry and Warrenpoint?
    Mr. Patten: I shall be happy to review everything during the next financial year, and I shall certainly review what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many Scots travel from Stranraer to Larne to join that line, and that any reduction in the service to Belfast would be most disappointing to them?
    Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. Friend says and I shall bear it in mind when I consider the matter.

    Housing Executive
    Mr. A. Cecil Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied that Her Majesty's Government provide sufficient funds to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to enable it to maintain its houses in Belfast adequately.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I hope to discuss this matter shortly with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I should make it clear that the funds allocated to the housing executive for maintenance in the current year reflect the spending requirements agreed between my Department and the executive when public expenditure allocations for 1983–84 were being considered.
    Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that several houses in estates managed by the housing executive within the inner city complex are not wind and weather-proof? Will he provide some money before the onset of winter, to help resolve the problem?
    Mr. Patten: I know how worried the hon. Gentleman is about the matter, because I had a brief word with him about it in Belfast a few days ago. I repeat that the amount of money being spent at present is that agreed between the Department and the housing executive last winter. However, the executive is aware that it can seek approval to increase the allocation if we can shift resources round within the total budget. I shall certainly discuss the matter with the housing executive.
    Mr. Soley: If expenditure on renovation and repairs were significantly increased, would not that not only improve the quality of housing but provide employment in the construction industry?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that expenditure on maintenance by the housing executive increased from £31·1 million in 1979–80 to £48·2 million in 1982–83, with a consequent effect on employment in the construction industry.
    Mr. Skinner: Does it not show clearly the Government's double standards to make announcements about increasing allocations for an area of the country which has been hit by massive unemployment over a long period, when later today another Minister will propose massive cuts in the money allocated to local authorities, principally in Scotland, but no doubt later in England, and tell them to cut their housing and welfare services and to hammer the poor, the homeless and the elderly?
    Mr. Patten: I suspect that that is a little far from the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Flannery: No, it is not.
    Mr. Patten: Any reference to double standards is certainly far removed from the Northern Ireland Office.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the problems facing my constituents who live in Orlit cottages because of the housing executive's lack of initiative in rehabilitating those cottages to provide the basic facilities required?
    Mr. Patten: I understand that the housing executive considered the problem of Orlit cottages at its meeting yesterday morning and made proposals which will shortly be put to the Department. It is important that we resolve that problem as soon as we can, because I am aware of the considerable anxiety that it has caused to many tenants and owners.

    Northern Ireland Assembly
    Mr. Michael NcNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any proposals to allow the transfer of a greater share of government to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Miss Maynardasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the way the new Assembly is working.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy towards the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. Prior: The people of Northern Ireland will continue to be offered, through the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Act 1982, a framework within which there can be agreement on devolution among representatives from both sides. It is for the Assembly to put forward devolution proposals. The Government's view is that stable political arrangements can come about only through arrangements that enjoy substantial support from both sides of the community. Until such agreement is possible, the Assembly will continue to have the functions, which it has already set about with vigour, of considering proposals for draft legislation and scrutinising the activities of the Northern Ireland Departments.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is not my right hon. Friend in danger of sacrificing the future effectiveness of the Assembly on the altar of SDLP intransigence? Should he not reconsider the 70 per cent. provision and see whether there is some other way to sound out the majority view in Northern Ireland about the way in which the Assembly might progress in the future?
    Mr. Prior: No. The key issue is not the SDLP but the fact that any arrangement to devolve power to a Northern Ireland Assembly would simply not work unless it had widespread acceptance throughout the community. Moreover, I do not believe that bringing orders before this House which did not have that widespread accceptance would gain acceptance here.
    Miss Maynard: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time we stopped treating Northern Ireland as a colony? Should we not withdraw the Unionist veto, so that we can get down to discussing the politics of the situation and how to bring about a united Ireland? Does he agree that until that is done the killing, the violence and the whole hellish situation will continue?
    Mr. Prior: I must tell the hon. Lady and those who might support her that the one certain way to increase the violence and lead to civil war in Northern Ireland would be to try to make the majority in Northern Ireland act in opposition to their own views. Therefore, we must seek agreement peacefully. It is no good saying that a united Ireland is the answer when we know perfectly well that that is unacceptable to the majority. We have to try to move forward rather more sensibly than that.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Having regard both to the absence of the desired consensus on devolution and to the good work done by the Assembly Committees, is it not better to proceed with a single statute book and the development of Ulster Committees of this Parliament, which could sometimes meet at Stormont?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, we have discussed that at considerable length. I do not believe that the integration of Northern Ireland into the workings of the United Kingdom in the same way as county councils, for example, operate here would be acceptable or would work.
    Mr. William Ross: As the right hon. Gentleman had such high hopes of the Assembly when he created it, is he not deeply disappointed that to date proposals for devolution have not been forthcoming from it?
    Mr. Prior: No, I am not disappointed. I never thought that it could happen quickly. We always said that it would take some while for the Assembly to move on to the second stage. The hon. Gentleman and others do the Assembly no good, and fail to give it the recognition that it should have, by constantly carping because it has not yet moved to a further stage. I hope that it will do so, but I think that it will take time.

    Antrim Area Hospital
    Mr. Clifford Forsytheasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the new Antrim area hospital will be completed.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Government remain committed to the modernisation and rationalisation of services in the northern board area. I am having discussions with the board to determine how the cost and construction of the new hospital can be accommodated within planned spending programmes, but I am not yet in a position to say when the hospital will be completed.
    Mr. Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that further delay on the new hospital is intolerable in view of the undertakings given by successive Governments?
    Mr. Patten: I hope to open the Antrim group school of nursing in late September or early October. By the time that happy event takes place, I hope to be in a position to say something more positive than I have been able to say today.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend intend to allow private firms to tender for catering, cleaning and similar services in the new Antrim hospital?
    Mr. Patten: Of course.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister realise how deeply disappointing his answer will be to my constituents, as the Coleraine hospital will not be built until the Antrim hospital is completed? Which generation of my constituents can look forward to a new hospital in Coleraine?
    Mr. Patten: I hope that the regional strategic plan, which will shortly go to the Assembly, and what I am able to say in the autumn will go some way to reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents about the improvement of facilities and the rationalisation of acute care facilities in the board area.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the ratio of unemployed persons to unfilled vacancies, on the latest available figures.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): At June 1983 the ratio of unemployed persons to registered unfilled vacancies in Northern Ireland was 68:1.
    Mr. Fatchett: I am sure the Minister recognises that that ratio tells a sorry story and that unemployment in Northern Ireland doubled under the previous Conservative Administration. Is he aware that the further cuts in public spending rumoured in certain newspapers will add to the dreadful unemployment in Northern Ireland? Will he give a commitment that he will resist further cuts in public spending?
    Mr. Butler: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to our Northern Ireland proceedings. I hope that he will continue to play a part and will visit us in Northern Ireland. There is no denying the seriousness of unemployment in the Province. The Government are tackling it in the best way that they can. Those who clamour for further increases in expenditure will not achieve the objective that they seek. If, as I hope, there continues to be a proper and prudent approach to Government expenditure in Northern Ireland, it will benefit from the lower interest rates and other advantages that follow.
    Mr. Soley: Is not the figure of 68:1 an appalling measure of this Government's disastrous economic policies, and a terrible warning to the rest of the country? Does not that figure show more than anything else that the economy is not recovering? Is it not equally clear that the investment in the pipeline will not significantly improve that figure? What steps will the Government take to alleviate unemployment and, above all, improve the availability of jobs in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is making the great mistake of attaching too much importance to that figure. What matters is the small increase in the number of vacancies that are appearing. The position has improved, albeit marginally, over the past six months and that is a cause for small encouragement.

    Baton Rounds
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the jury's findings in the inquest into the death of Stephen McConomy, he will introduce stricter measures to control the firing of baton rounds.
    Mr. Prior: The Chief Constable and the GOC have issued clear instructions which ensure that baton rounds are used only when other means of controlling disturbances are ineffective and the risks are justified. I have reviewed the situation in the light of the recent inquest and I do not consider that the present instructions require amendment, but we continue to look for acceptable alternatives.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister accept that the evidence given at the inquest on this young boy showed that the plastic bullet gun was defective and that this defect contributed to, if not caused, the boy's death? Is not the conclusion, in the light of 14 deaths so far through the use of plastic and rubber bullets in Northern Ireland, that these are dangerous weapons and, unless they are banned, further deaths will follow?
    Mr. Prior: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the defective weapon was one of the factors considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decided that no prosecution should take place. I can give the House an example of the problems with which the police have to deal. Last Saturday, the police in Londonderry were attacked with 350 petrol bombs and in one night in May they were attacked by 500 petrol bombs and nine live shots. These are the problems that we ask our people in Northern Ireland to deal with, and they must have the weapons that they feel are necessary to protect themselves.
    Everything will be done to keep tight control on any use of plastic baton rounds. As hon. Members will know, the number that has been used in the past year is a fraction of
    558
    those used in previous years, and I am delighted that that is the case. The way to stop the use of plastic baton rounds is for young hooligans to be encouraged not to use petrol bombs.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be grateful to him for reminding us why the security forces have to use baton rounds—because of the terror and intimidation? Is it not a great credit to the security forces that they can carry out their duties when any other country's security forces, faced with this problem, would use not baton rounds but live bullets?
    Mr. Prior: It is a constant source of wonderment and admiration that, in the light of enormous provocation, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and our forces in Northern Ireland behave in the manner they do. We should not underestimate what would happen if our forces in Northern Ireland were not as efficient, professional and impartial as they now are.

    Political Parties (Discussions)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for further discussions with political parties in Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: I keep in touch with representatives of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, although I have no specific plans at present for formal discussions with them. As I said in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 12 May 1983, I am also happy to explain Government policy to representatives of constitutional parties from the Republic of Ireland and to hear their views.
    Mr. Canavan: When will the Government resort to common sense and try to organise a constitutional conference of political representatives on an all-Ireland basis, along the lines of the Lancaster House conference on Zimbabwe, to work out a new constitution for an independent, united Ireland so that the people of Ireland can decide their own destiny without British interference?
    Mr. Prior: I regard such questions as being about as mischievous as they can possibly be.

    United States of America (Convicted Terrorists)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people convicted of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland are believed to have taken refuge in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: One person convicted of a terrorist-type offence in Northern Ireland is known to have taken refuge in the United States, and proceedings have been started to extradite him.
    Mr. Adley: Has my hon. Friend noticed the partiality with which the United States courts seem to interpret the phrase "political crimes"? Has he observed that whenever the Israeli Government want the extradition of somebody arrested on a criminal charge that person is always returned, but when Her Majesty's Government make the same request the courts seem frequently to find excuses for not doing so? Will my hon. Friend bring this discrepancy to the attention of the American Government, through the Foreign Office?
    Mr. Scott: It is not for me to comment on the decisions of courts in the United States, or any other country. I am satisfied that the authorities in the United States act in accordance with the extradition treaty between our two countries.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Parryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 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. This evening I am attending a dinner given by the British Jewish community to pay tribute to Mr. Shlomo Argov.
    Mr. Parry: Will the Prime Minister spell out where the further proposed £5 million cuts are to be made? Is she aware that if they are to be made in education, social services and housing, that could lead to further social disorder? I challenge the Prime Minister to pay an early visit to Liverpool to see at first hand what effect her policies are having—or has she not got the guts to make such a visit?
    The Prime Minister: We have decided, as I said on Tuesday, to stick to the public planned totals of expenditure for this year, next year and the succeeding years. It was on those totals that we fought the election. As to Liverpool, not all is bad on Merseyside. Cammell Laird has won an order for an accommodation rig for Morecambe Bay, Vauxhall has announced the introduction of double shift working in Ellesmere Port, General Motors' AC Delco plant in Kirkby recently announced a large order for the United States, Kodak has recently invested £10 million in Knowsley and there have been announcements of substantial investment by Higsons Brewery, Shell and Ford among others. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman does not like good news, but that is good news.
    Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Lady add to her remarks by telling us more about Merseyside? What is the figure for the increase in unemployment on Merseyside since she took office in May 1979? Also, has she seen reports of suggestions by Sir Terence Beckett of the CBI that jobs in the public services should be cut by 360,000 next year, and does she agree with that?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give figures for specific areas. When we came into office unemployment was about 1·3 million and it is now about 3·1 million. If the right hon. Gentleman wants figures for a particular travel-to-work area we can give them to him. The CBI is correct in expecting the Government to keep strict control on public spending, especially as every penny piece of public spending eventually comes from the private sector, and the greater the public spending, the greater the burden upon its back. With regard to the numbers employed in the public sector, the CBI is right in expecting us to be as efficient in the use of our manpower as it is expected to be in the use of its.
    Mr. Foot: in that case, can the Prime Minister tell us how much she thinks the cut of 360,000 in public service
    560
    numbers proposed by Sir Terence Beckett would cost the Exchequer, and what her reckoning is of how much this would cost in unemployment pay and lost taxes? If she agrees with Sir Terence's proposals, does she also agree with the cuts of 130,000 in education and 80,000 in the Health Service? When did she mention that during the general election?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is very much aware that we have constantly said that we must have efficient use of manpower throughout the whole of the public service. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the published figures he will see that between 1960 and now the numbers employed by central Government have gone up very considerably—indeed, by a full 20 per cent. over that period.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady tell us clearly whether she agrees with Sir Terence Beckett's proposed 80,000 cuts in the number of people employed in the Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the full details of the specific cuts that he is recommending. I am proud that under this Government the Civil Service is down to its lowest numbers for 15 years. The right hon. Gentleman will know that last February we announced a management review of the National Health Service. We should be careful in the way in which we use taxpayers' money and we should have maximum efficiency in management. I note that the right hon. Gentleman does not want either. He wants extravagance, inefficiency, high taxation and high costs.
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the recent CBI remarks that excessive Government expenditure is likely to lead to higher taxation and higher interest rates and that will inevitably lead to the bankrupting of a substantial number of firms and further unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Excessive public expenditure has to be borne by industry and commerce. Therefore, we must be careful to keep down the total amount of public expenditure, otherwise taxation will go up. It was the previous Labour Government who put the national insurance surcharge on industry and commerce. It was this Government, by virtue of their good financial management, who managed to take £2 billion from the taxation of industry and commerce.
    Mr. Beith: If the Prime Minister is so convinced that the CBI is right, what is her response to the other side of its argument, that there should be more Government spending on capital projects of the kind that generates employment in private industry?
    The Prime Minister: The two points are not incompatible. As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, I have said many times from this Dispatch Box that within the planned total of Government expenditure it would in many ways be better if we allocated a larger proportion to capital expenditure. But that requires cutting down on current expenditure and when it comes to securing such reductions few people will agree them. Therefore,

    561
    increased capital expenditure includes an increased total expenditure, which again would put an extra burden on industry.
    Mr. Rippon: To save public expenditure will the Prime Minister find time today to abolish the Review Body on Top Salaries, if it has not already had the good sense to resign?
    The Prime Minister: The Review Body on Top Salaries looks at a number of salary scales other than those of Members of Parliament and Ministers, and those other people would prefer the review body to continue its work.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dormand: Has the Prime Minister given consideration this week to the message that came loud and clear from the magnificent Durham miners' centenary gala, which was held last Saturday, to the effect that the closure of pits on economic grounds alone will be fiercely resisted throughout the British coalfields? When will the right hon. Lady realise the devastation that is caused to mining communities by such closures, particularly when her Government do not provide alternative employment? Finally, will the right hon. Lady now dismiss Mr. Ian MacGregor before he starts his butchery, which will cause such social unrest in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: The amount to be found by taxpayers through the external financing limit for coal this year is in excess of £1 billion. That is in addition to the money that they have to pay for coal and electricity. Under "Plan for Coal", which was published in 1974, it was assumed that on average 3 million to 4 million tonnes of exhausted capacity would be closed every year. In fact, closures have averaged just over 1 million tonnes a year. It was assumed that there would be substantial investment in coal and under this Government investment in the coal industry has amounted to more than £3 billion. So the investment programme has been in excess of that contained in Labour's "Plan for Coal", although the closures have not.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to keep strict control of public expenditure, because the previous Labour Government's failure to maintain strict control on Government expenditure meant that we had to go cap in hand to the IMF?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree totally with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to keep strict control of public expenditure, otherwise we shall have to resort either to excessive borrowing, in which case interest rates will rise and the recovery will be aborted, or to much higher taxation, both on people and industry. Both would be bad.
    Ms. Harman: Bearing in mind that the school summer holidays begin tomorrow, is the Prime Minister concerned that there is no comprehensive public provision to care for and entertain children during the school holidays, particularly as most parents have to work to make ends meet? Does she not think that it is a scandalous gap in public services, about which the Government should do something?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not believe that it is up to the Government to provide comprehensive care for school children during school holidays. It is up to local authorities to see that the maximum use is made of buildings, playing fields and swimming pools during the recess and to work with parents and teachers to that end.
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reply that was given yesterday by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in which he said that he intended during this Parliament to privatise British Telecom, the British Steel Corporation, Rolls-Royce and other industries under his Department? Given the benefit that will accrue to the taxpayer and the consumer from that programme, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is implemented as expeditiously as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we shall implement that programme as quickly as we can, bearing in mind that in some cases we have to get legislation through the House and that we must have regard to the speed at which one places those organisations on the market. It is much better for Britain to have less nationalised industry and to put more in the private sector. It is a better bargain for the consumer and it means that industry can obtain its investment from the market instead of having to rely upon Government sources.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister recognise that her Government's policies have resulted in the doubling of unemployment nationally and that in some areas on Merseyside more than 90 per cent. of the young people are without jobs? When will she realise that such unemployment is crippling individuals and decimating families? What figure will unemployment have to reach before she recognises that the Government's policies are contributing massively to unemployment?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. To put the record straight, that was a supplementary to question No. Q6.
    The Prime Minister: The only way to create more jobs is to create goods and services which people will purchase in competition with the goods and services which they can purchase from overseas. For that purpose the Government need to keep industry's cost down, provide tax incentives that will encourage small businesses and the products of new technology, together with a research and development programme that speeds up the bringing of new products to the market. That is the Government's policy and programme and it is far more likely to produce jobs in future than any policy of Labour Members.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the public conversion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to the Conservative policies for the sale of council houses, membership of the European Community and multilateral disarmament? Does she agree that it would have been a darned sight better had he said that to the electorate before rather than after the election?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the conversion of anyone to the sale of council houses, membership of the EC—upon which many jobs depend—and multilateral

    563
    disarmament, which provides for the security of Britain. I note that a number of Opposition Members are very dissatisfied with both the campaign that they fought and the organisation. If they are dissatisfied with the campaign,they have only themselves to blame.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can the House be protected from long answers by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: There are not only long answers but long questions.

Business of the House
3.31 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 25 JULY — Motion on the Summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
TUESDAY 26 JULY—Until about 7 o'clock, motions on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1983–84, and the Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1981–82.
Afterwards, motions on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 3) Report 1981–82 and on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1983–84.
Motions on Members' pay and allowances and on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order.
WEDNESDAY 27 JULY—Until 10 o'clock, a debate on orders and regulations on social security uprating of benefits, and on the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order.
Afterwards, motions relating to housing benefit regulations and equal treatment in social security benefits. The relevant orders will be listed in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 28 JULY—Motions on the code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales, and on the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) (No. 2) Order.
FRIDAY 29 JULY—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment until Monday 24 October.
Mr. Foot: As legislation on the housing benefits regulations which became law more than a year ago has not yet been fully implemented in many parts of the country, would it not be better to have a general debate on the question rather than debating particular regulations, which is not the best way to discuss the general principles involved? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that possibility.
Because of the uncertainty created by the Prime Minister's replies earlier this week about whether the Office of Fair Trading's case against the restrictive practice of the Stock Exchange is to be allowed to go ahead or to be blocked by the Government at the City's behest or requirement, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a short debate next week on that subject so that the House may give its views on what is obviously—no one can deny it—an extremely important question?
Even at this late stage, will the right hon. Gentleman consider afresh the proposal I put to him a couple of weeks ago for a debate on the Government's plans for public expenditure cuts? The Prime Minister pretended that there will not be cuts, but I do not suppose that that was the mood in which the Cabinet discussed the issue this morning. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate or, at least, suggest that there should be a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer before we rise for the recess?
Mr. Biffen: I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order. If he is still anxious to press for
566
a debate on the public expenditure announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a couple of weeks ago, we can pursue that through the usual channels.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point about the Stock Exchange and its status with the Office of Fair Trading's inquiry, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is fully aware of the significance of the problem.
I shall bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a general debate, followed by the votes, on the social security rerating of benefits. We can consider that through the usual channels.
Sir Hugh Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the instruments to be debated on Tuesday will reflect precisely the various decisions of the House on Members' pay? Can those instruments be adjusted or must they remain in accordance with the motion passed by the House on Wednesday morning?
Mr. Biffen: I assure my right hon. Friend that it is the Government's intention that the order to be tabled on Tuesday on Members' pay will reflect the decision of the House. He will understand that having reached a decision there must be some assessment. I am happy to discuss that matter with him. The order is not amendable.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the reduction in standards in local authority schools in England recently revealed in Her Majesty's inspectors' report before there are any further damaging cuts in education expenditure that would make the position worse?
Mr. Biffen: There is clearly no scope for such a debate in the business that has been announced for next week. I have no doubt that we can return to that topic in the autumn.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser), will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that the resolution to be proposed will include the modification moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and myself on the linkage of Members' pay? That is most important. My right hon. Friend said that the resolution would not be amendable. Surely it would be amendable save in a way that would raise expenditure under it.
Mr. Biffen: The answer to my right hon. Friend's first point is "Yes". I shall consider his second point. As I understand it, the motion is not amendable.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made to sort out the position between the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who said that the question of arms sales to Chile was not discussed during the visit of General Matthei, and the Foreign Secretary, who said that it was discussed?
Mr. Biffen: I can offer no prospect of such a statement next week. I shall certainly draw the attention of the Ministers concerned to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Sir Bernard Braine: Has my right hon. Friend observed that, in the very week in which it was announced that the Madrid conference on European

567
security and co-operation had agreed on a document that would strengthen human rights in Europe, there were signs of increased violation of human rights in Poland and Czechoslovakia? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that before the Government agree to that farcical document the House will have a statement or preferably a debate?
Mr. Biffen: I know that my hon. Friend's point commands great interest in the House. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to it.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Leader of the House aware that there was obvious and widespread anxiety on both sides of the House when he failed to give a direct and categoric answer to the question of the right hon. Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser) about the orders due for debate next Tuesday? We recognise that they must be framed in technical language, but will the orders precisely and accurately reflect the substance of the motions that were agreed by the House on Wednesday morning?
Mr. Biffen: I am fully resolved that that should be the case, and I am satisfied that it is the case.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the latest proposal of the Commission for Racial Equality will not result in further legislation which might impose additional burdens on English people?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give the assurance in the terms that it is sought, but I shall report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging an early debate on the subject of television licences for the elderly which has concerned my constituents before, during and since the election? People who live in sheltered accommodation pay 5p for the licence while people who do not pay the full licence fee.
Mr. Biffen: I cannot promise to find Government time for discussing that subject in the coming week. In any case, it is a matter on which possibly the hon. Gentleman could use the advantage of private Members' time. Perhaps he will be successful in the autumn.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall not have a replay of what happened on Members' pay on Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning? I was filled then with a nostalgia that I never expected to have. That might have been prevented if the matter had been sorted out by shop stewards on both sides of the House over beer and sandwiches at No. 10 Downing Street.
Mr. Biffen: As I soldiered through the night, I was aware of many sentiments, but I must admit that nostalgia was not one of them. However, I am glad to know that it was in the mixture with much else.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: As the Government's policy has doubled the number of unemployed in Merseyside, and as there are no jobs for this year's school leavers in my constituency, why shall
568
we not have an opportunity to debate unemployment on Merseyside before October? Is it because the Government have nothing to offer the people of that area?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman should try his luck at securing an opportunity to speak in the debate on Merseyside which will take place on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Monday.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 97 on captive nations week?
[That this House wishing to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the designation by President Eisenhower of the United States of America of the third week in July as Captive Nations week in the United States of America, and recognising the common commitment to the principles of freedom, democracy and self-determination of peoples shared by the United States of America and United Kingdom, urges Her Majesty's Government also to designate officially the third week in July as Captive Nations Week in the United Kingdom as a symbol of the British nation's support for the restoration of the right to self determination, democracy and freedom for the peoples within the Soviet Union and of Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain.]
It stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) and myself and no fewer than 114 other right hon. and hon. Members. The motion asks that Her Majesty's Government should designate every year the third week in July as captive nations week, as is officially done in the United States, to commemorate those who live without human rights behind the Iron Curtain.
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend's point but, as my statement is about next week's business, I can add nothing to it in that context.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 105 standing in my name?
[That this House views with grave concern the standards of residential accommodation provided in some hospitals for nurses; notes that, because of the failure to provide economic rented accommodation during the last four years in inner city areas, there is now a greater demand for residence within hospitals, but that cuts in public expenditure have meant that the upgrading and maintenance of old properties has obtained a very low priority in the allocation of reduced funds and the failure to do routine work has led to living standards which are unacceptable; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to make a special central allocation of funds to each regional health authority to provide adequate toilet, bathroom and other facilities, together with equipment which would make a nurse's living standards comparable with that which she would enjoy in her family home.]
It concerns the squalor in which many of our nurses in residence must live. Since I tabled my motion, two other early-day motions have appeared on the Order Paper. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread

569
concern in the House that this has come about because of the rundown in repairs over a number of years? Despite the fact that we shall have no time to debate this matter before the summer recess, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the Minister for Health to make a statement?
Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, his early-day motion is paralleled by two others, which shows the amount of interest there is in this topic. This will be the subject of a debate before the recess to be initiated by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I will, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) about the Madrid conference, as it appears unlikely that there will be either a statement or a debate before the recess, will my right hon. Friend reconsider a request that I made earlier that a document should be placed in the Library setting out precisely what, if any, improvements in the observance of human rights have taken place by the signatory power, the Soviet Union, since the last Helsinki conference?
Mr. Biffen: I have said that I shall approach my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on this matter and in so doing I will attach to my representations my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the tragic deaths of many British tourists in holiday flats on the Algarve, do the Government propose to make a statement before we adjourn for our own holidays about the dangers for British tourists in that area? If not, may we have a debate on the subject so that those who go there will at least know that they are not running into hideous danger?
Mr. Biffen: No arrangements have been made for either a statement or a debate. I should have thought that the topic had been widely ventilated.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety among many people who change their jobs who discover that in the process they lose rights under private pension schemes? I accept that the Government would prefer the pension companies to attend to this matter without the intervention of legislation, but is it not becoming increasingly clear that that is unlikely? If the Government are not ready to introduce legislation, there may well be an argument for having a wide-ranging debate on the subject.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a formidable topic, as I am sure he realises. I shall bear in mind his point about the desirability of a debate, but I must say at once that there is no prospect for it next week. Perhaps we may consider the matter when we return in the autumn.
Mr. Ioan Evans: The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Cabinet were discussing public expenditure cuts today. If we cannot have a debate on the matter next week, may we at least have a statement so that we can go home to our constituencies to tell the people
570
what employment benefit and other social service cuts are being considered by the Government? At the same time, may we have a statement on the breakdown of talks in the Common Market today in view of the implications for Britain's contribution to the EC?
Mr. Biffen: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I cannot reasonably add to what I have already said to the Leader of the Opposition. On the second point, I will consider the desirability of the making of a statement.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Bearing in mind early-day motion 90 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), and the considerable and rising public concern about crimes of violence, will my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to have a debate soon after the House returns in October on increasing the punishments for such crimes?
[That this House notes the result of the Debate on the Death Penalty, and regards it as a final and irrevocable settlement of a great domestic question; looks to the courts to ensure that public outrage at crimes of murder and violence is fully met by severe prison sentences in all cases except where there are exceptional mitigating factors; and calls upon the Home Secretary to review all statutory provisions for sentences for crimes of violence to see whether any more rigorous mandatory provisions should be recommended to Parliament in fresh legislation.]
Mr. Biffen: It will be considered when the House returns in the autumn, but I suggest that, as my hon. Friend takes such a lively and respected interest in this topic, he might use the advantage of private Members' time.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is bound to be a great deal of public concern in our constituencies about public spending cuts? As the subject will be endlessly discussed and speculated about in the press, surely the House of Commons should have a statement before the recess from Ministers, and in particular the Prime Minister. Is the Leader of the House telling us that no statement on the public spending cuts will be made before we break for the recess?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the premise on which that question was postulated. As for a debate on the economy, I said that the matter was for consideration through the usual channels.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As it appears that the mass medication of the water supply by the addition of fluoride is as unlawful in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as it has just been held to be in Scotland, should we not have a statement before October about the Government's intention?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot immediately accept my hon. and learned Friend's premise about whether it is lawful, but I will look at the proposition. I can say without hesitation that no provision has been made for such a debate or statement next week.
Mr. Max Madden: A letter has been sent by the Minister of State, Home Office this week to Members of both Houses which undermines Members' rights to make representations on immigration matters. Does the Leader of the House appreciate that, so long as we have the most unfair and unjust immigration laws, it is important that we have the right to make

571
representations, especially when hon. Members are unwilling or unable to make those representations in the first instance? Will he arrange for that letter to be withdrawn in the interests of fairness rather than giving Ministers a quiet life from considering representations?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot make a judgment immediately in response to that question, but if the hon. Gentleman would refer the document to me I will consider it.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it might be helpful to the Government to have an early statement on the whole question of public expenditure and to debate the issue in the first week after we return in the autumn?
Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Leader of the House is saying that there will not be a debate on the Cabinet decision this morning to cut public expenditure, so throwing more people out of work and creating more poverty in the land, and if he cannot guarantee that a statement will be made next week, what guarantee can he give that there will be no private briefing sessions during the long summer recess to tell the press what took place this morning? If he will not guarantee that, what assurance can he give that the moles will not begin to operate in the various Government Departments? Is he aware that the only way to stop them is to put locks on the photocopying machines?
Mr. Biffen: I note all that. I reject absolutely and entirely the description of what allegedly happened at public expenditure considerations by the Cabinet. I reiterate what I said to the Leader of the Opposition: if there is a keen desire to have a debate on the economy, that can be considered through the usual channels.
Mr. Robert Adley: I refer my right hon. Friend again to early-day motion 7 which has been signed by more than 200 right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government immediately to take steps to enable people on holiday to be eligible for postal votes at a General Election.]
Has my right hon. Friend been advised whether the Home Secretary intends to make a statement next week on the subject of postal votes for holidaymakers? Has my right hon. Friend seen, for instance, the postcard registration and absentee ballot request form which is made available by the United States Government to all American citizens? If I give it to him, will he look at it, pass it on to the Home Secretary and tell him that he, the Leader of the House, is getting fed up will all my questions and would he, the Home Secretary, please put my right hon. Friend out of his misery?
Mr. Biffen: I am of such a good natured disposition that I actually enjoy my hon. Friend's questions. However, that does not in any sense vitiate my view that the point he raises is profoundly important—that is, the need to get reform in our electoral arrangements—and I believe that the Home Secretary is fully apprised of the matter. He has no plans to make a statement in the coming week, but I do not believe that my hon. Friend will be dissatisfied when we consider the record by the end of this Parliament.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social
572
Services to make a statement before the recess on allegations of high-powered American salesmen employed in private hospitals selling blood from the blood bank? I tabled questions on Monday of this week, but in view of the public disquiet and the concern of NUPE and ASTMS, which are involved in the National Health Service, will the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade the Secretary of State to make a statement on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the anxieties which the hon. Gentleman expresses.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of many inner London parents about Left-wing masters at county hall sending out many Marxist-dominated curriculum documents, without the support of the professional staff at county hall, for consideration and teaching in schools? Is he further aware that they have set up a unit costing the ratepayers about £130,000 a year to fight for the continued survival of the present political and financial structure of the ILEA? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement as soon as possible?
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer to the Secretary of State for Education and Science the point that much concerns my hon. Friend and which, I am sure, concerns many others.
Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983, which were due to be considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on Tuesday, will come into force on 9 August? If not, will he please find time for a debate on the matter next week or, failing that, immediately after our return in October?
Mr. Biffen: Certainly.
Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is great anxiety about the mean, philistine, penny-pinching attitude of the Government towards the arts? First, a blow was struck against the theatre museum, which caused great alarm and consternation, and now there is an indication that the Arts Council grant is to be cut by almost £2 million, a large proportion of its total grant. If that happens, a large number of clients who are dependent on Arts Council support to continue to provide the entertainment that our people need and enjoy will have to go, thus creating more unemployment. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to give us an opportunity to debate the matter before the House rises for the recess?
Mr. Biffen: I suggest that this is pre-eminently a circumstance in which the hon. Lady can herself pursue the campaign. I regret that no time will be available for her to do this next week, but I wish her luck in the autumn.
Mr. John Silkin: A decision by the Secretary of State for Defence on the ALARM system is overdue. If that decision is reached between now and the rising of the House, will the Leader of the House undertake that it will be given by oral statement to the House and not by written answer?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise the importance of the decision, and I shall examine most sympathetically the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
[Orders and regulations for debate on Wednesday 27 July:
Until 10 o'clock—
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1983
Supplementary Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1983
Child Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1983
Family Income Supplement (Computation) Regulations 1983
Housing Benefits (Increase of Needs Allowances) Regulations 1983
Social Security (General Benefit) amendment Regulations 1983
Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Single Payments) Amendment Regulations 1983
Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1983
Afterwards, Prayers—
Housing Benefit Amendment Regulations 1983
Housing Benefits (Transitional) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1983
Supplementary Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1983
Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Amendment Regulations 1983
Supplementary Benefit (Equal Treatment) Regulations 1983
Family Income Supplements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1983]
Mr. Speaker: I have two brief statements to make. The first is about the tabling of questions today. The announcement of the proposed date of the return after the summer recess means that the Table Office can now receive questions for oral answer during the first week after the recess. Questions must normally be accepted by 4 o'clock to be included in the random numbering process. For the convenience of hon. Members, I will extend that time today until 6 o'clock.
Secondly, I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 29 July, up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will he held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Thomas, said at various stages that he would consider the question of substantial questions to the Prime Minister rather than open questions. I was wondering whether, at an early stage during your Speakership, you would be reflecting on the issues involved in open questions and questions of substance.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may be assured that I am reflecting on all kinds of things in the early stages of my Speakership. He raises a very important matter and it is certainly one to which I shall give consideration, but it is difficult for the Chair to make any absolute rules on that sort of issue.

Rates (Glasgow District)
3.59 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the Rate Reduction (Glasgow District) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
It is worthwhile at the outset of the debate to remind ourselves that we are considering whether the total estimated expenses of Glasgow district council as proposed in the report are excessive and unreasonable. It is to that question, and to no other, that I have applied my mind in presenting this report, and in doing so I have taken into account all the representations that have been made to me about this expenditure.
Before turning to the detail of the report, I should like to say a brief general word about why we need to have such reports and to answer the question as to why the Government cannot just ignore what local authorities spend. It would be much easier for us all if we could, but there are overwhelming reasons why no Government could control the economy properly if they allowed local authority expenditure to take off.
Local government spending is undeniably part of public spending. It is funded partly by local rates and partly by general taxation. If it increases, there are fewer resources available for other public expenditure programmes, and private industry, which earns our living abroad. The Scottish Office spending programme is a clear example of these points. Over half of the money spent on the Scottish Office spending programme is spent not by me but by local authorities. No one who wants to be taken seriously can sensibly believe that any Secretary of State could abandon all control over such a large part of his spending. We do not, therefore, take powers out of any desire to undermine local democracy, despite what is said in an article in The Times today.
It is important that local government and locally elected representatives should determine local priorities. However, central and local government cannot work in isolation. It is an essential part of the machinery of government that they should co-operate. Central government have been democratically elected, with the responsibility for pursuing national objectives, including economic objectives. Local government have been democratically elected to pursue local objectives, but these must be pursued within the framework of national objectives set by Government. There cannot be any question of local government expenditure being left out of accounts when the Government consider their public expenditure policies.
There is nothing new about this. All Governments, including Labour, have felt it necessary to take steps to control local authority expenditure. For instance, in 1975 the noble Lord Ross of Marnock said,
"restraint on spending by local authorities in the years ahead has to be of a stringency hitherto unheard of, certainly in recent times. That is necessary in the interests both of Government and of ratepayers. We have to try to keep down the level of expenditure and the level of the rates."—[Official Report, 15 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 1100.]
Lord Ross was a predecessor of mine in office, and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) was Minister of State, Scottish Office when those words where spoken.
The largest reduction in local authority expenditure since reorganisation was achieved not by a Conservative
576
Government but by the Labour Government in the financial year 1977–78. No Government can afford to ignore the level of local authority expenditure when considering their overall public expenditure policies. That ought to be common ground between the two sides.
When we took office local authority expenditure was increasing. This had obvious implications for the national economy. I had no option but to call for the co-operation of local authorities to reduce their expenditure, in the interests of ratepayers and the national economy. Some authorities made great efforts to co-operate. However, a few did the opposite and continued to budget for a high and increasing level of spending. In that case, apart from exhortation, I had only one means at my disposal to try to control local government spending — alteration of the level of rate support grant. I was not the first to use this device. The largest reduction in the RSG percentage—of four points—was made in 1977–78 by none other than the right hon. Member for Govan. The abatement in 1976–77—again under his leadership—leading to a 3 per cent. reduction in local authority expenditure was also the Labour party's policy. That was the first time that those powers had been used.
Any such general reduction in grant is allocated among authorities according to their original share of rate support grant, not the amount of their overspending. For this reason, we took powers in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981 to make selective reductions of grant when I was satisfied that an authority's budgeted expenditure was excessive and unreasonable.
The object of the powers was to take action before expenditure took place and to concentrate action on those authorities principally responsible for the overspending. However, powers to take selective action against individual authorities that overspent were not new and not invented by me and this Government. They were a repeat of the powers contained in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 when several right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in Government. They positively supported such powers then. Why do they not so support them now?
The only difference today is that the powers can be exercised at the beginning of the financial year instead of the end. The Government can now ensure that money saved is definitely returned to the ratepayers. This year is the first time that I can require rate reductions. Having initiated action against five authorities, I am now continuing action against four.
When, in letters dated 5 May, I initiated action against five authorities under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, the House was told in a written answer on 6 May, at about the same time as the authorities were receiving their letters.
The five authorities involved — Lothian regional council, Shetland Islands council, Kirkcaldy, Stirling and Glasgow district councils — were invited to make representations to me.
All five authorities made representations and either I or my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for home affairs and the environment met each of the five authorities to discuss their representations. I made it clear that I had an open mind and would give careful consideration to such representations. In the light of those representations and discussions, I decided to modify my proposals in every

577
case. No one can seriously maintain that I did not listen to the points made and, indeed, in the case of Shetland, I decided to take no further action.
Mr. Jim Craigen: What was the secret of the fifth authority, that the Minister decided to drop action against it, but to continue against the other four?
Mr. Younger: Those consultations were conducted in a genuine spirit of listening to the representations. There was a case for initiating action against the Shetland Islands council on the basis of the figures it presented. However, as in all cases, I took its representations fully into account and considered them. There are a large number of unique circumstances arising from North sea oil which carry with them special financial consequences. For instance, roads have been subject to volumes of traffic of a type for which they were never designed— heavy lorries involved in construction of oil facilities. There was an almost unique expansion of the population of about 20 per cent. between 1978 and 1981. Large population increases followed by large decreases caused immense problems. There was considerable uncertainty about school rolls which led to added costs and extra provisions. For all those reasons —I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—a strong case was made—
Mr. Robin Cook rose—
Mr. Younger: —that, with Shetland, there were peculiar and remarkable circumstances. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) would be criticising me bitterly had I ignored the representations and refused to make any change.
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Craigen rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
Mr. Younger: I should proceed. I have given way to the hon. Member for Maryhill once.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should rephrase my remark. Is the Secretary of State giving way?
Mr. Craigen: I am grateful. The Secretary of State asked me whether I would agree with him. I was asking the question because I assumed that the Scottish Office would have had all those relevant facts before the decision was taken to drop Shetland. After all, the Scottish Office drew up the guidelines.
Mr. Younger: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me. I presume, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not, like me, have abandoned action against Shetland but would have proceeded with it. The four authorities against which action continues were told in the letter of 29 June that I proposed to limit the rate reduction initially proposed and the authorities — [Interruption]—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) must not seek to override what the Minister is saying.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister may not have heard me.
Mr. Younger: The authorities were told that I proposed to limit the rate reduction initially proposed and the authorities were asked whether they are now prepared to make a voluntary rate reduction of that amount under section 108A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The authorities were asked to let me know by 6 July whether they were prepared to make such a voluntary rate reduction. Unfortunately, none of them were prepared to make a voluntary rate reduction of the level proposed by me, and I therefore laid on 7 July the necessary reports, seeking the approval of the House to the rate reductions that I had proposed. I personally much regret that the authorities have refused to co-operate in this way, because it prolongs the uncertainty for their ratepayers and delays the point at which those ratepayers can receive the refunds that we consider are both justifiable and necessary.
I turn to the case of Glasgow district council. Much has been said during the past few weeks about so-called "Scottish Office errors" over Glasgow's figures, and I shall deal with this matter first.
All local authorities have to submit by the middle of March each year a form giving information about their budget for the following financial year. This form has to be certified as correct by the authority. Glasgow's form, as submitted, was, to put it at its best, somewhat confusing. It included a sum of £8 million for unallocated contingencies, without any explanation. In view of the size of the sum, the Scottish Office made inquiries of Glasgow. Those revealed that the sum was an unallocated contingency which should have been shown elsewhere, and none of it could have been taken into account as part of Glasgow's relevant expenditure for comparison against guidelines. Once the Scottish Office had established that, the £8 million was removed from Glasgow's figures for purposes of guideline comparison and its guideline excess adjusted accordingly. The £8 million played no part at any time in our consideration of Glasgow's expenditure for selective action. If there was any mistake, it was Glasgow's, for failing to present its figures properly.
The second so-called error was over the £4 million included by Glasgow in its certified return on the line for housing improvement grants. This line is used by all other authorities — and up to this year has been used by Glasgow itself—only for the expenditure involved in administering housing improvement grants and the loans charges, but not for the grants themselves. This year, Glasgow decided to enter in this line expenditure on the grants themselves. It was bound to cause confusion if Glasgow chose, without explanation, to change its practice in providing information. The first time that it was drawn to my attention was by a representative of Glasgow district at a meeting between me and representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The purpose of such meetings is, of course, to discuss local authority financial matters in general, not detailed points of this kind.
Once again, the term "error" is quite inappropriate. When the true purpose of the £4 million, shown against "housing improvement grants", was explained at the meeting between the Minister with responsibility for home affairs and the environment and representatives of Glasgow district council on 20 June, it was accepted that the £4 million should be regarded as housing expenditure and excluded from the council's expenditure in any consideration of selective action.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Was not the £4 million drawn specifically to the attention of the Scottish Office in April, not June?
Mr. Younger: No. It first was brought to our attention, as a new point, by a representative of Glasgow district at the meeting with COSLA that I attended.
Mr. Millan: With great respect to the Minister, the £4 million was brought to the attention of the Secretary of State's office very much earlier than June. In fact, it was brought to the attention of officials in the Scottish Office on 22 April. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
Mr. Younger: I do not know what document the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. I am working quite properly, on the form that was presented to me by Glasgow district council. That is a perfectly fair starting point, which the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny, starting from the form that was presented by Glasgow district council, putting the best case that it could.
Mr. Millan: I shall deal with the matter in my own speech, but the form was presented in March and it was drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State's officials on 22 April. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that.
Mr. Younger: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that, because the first time that it was drawn to my attention or that of my officials was on the occasion that I mentioned. That is the information that I have.
Much has been said about the consequences of removing the £4 million, now recognised as housing expenditure, from Glasgow's relevant expenditure. Now that it is excluded from comparisons, Glasgow's excess over guidelines comes down from 36 per cent. to 30 per cent. — still substantial — and its expenditure per head comes down from £112 to £107, still the highest of any district council and well above the average of its comparable districts at £67. The adjustment has been fully taken into account in the consideration of the lower level of reduction to 3p, set out in the report.
Glasgow has made much of the difficulty of comparing it with other authorities, but one is entitled to ask why its expenditure per head is so high compared with other authorities—Edinburgh at £67 a head, Aberdeen at £67, Dundee at £62, while Glasgow is £107 per head. That clear difference cannot be laughed off.
Let us now turn to the rate reduction which I am proposing in this case. I took careful note of Glasgow's representations and modified my original proposal of a rate reduction of 5p to 3p. At the meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for home affairs and the environment, the representatives of the council accepted that, as a result of the extra capital allocation that I made for environmental improvement, there would be savings of at least £3 million on their revenue budget. Glasgow accepted that that would mean that at least 1·5p could be returned to the ratepayers. Indeed, Glasgow suggested that it could be returned as part of its 1984–85 budget. As for the remaining 1·5p, I find it hard to believe that Glasgow cannot make the savings which that represents — £3 million. In terms of expenditure, it is about 3 per cent. of its budget. It is not for me to suggest where those savings might be made. However, I doubt whether the various organisations which the district council has spent money writing to and encouraging to write to me about a "£10 million reduction in expenditure" will suffer as they have
580
been led to expect by some of the propaganda. Glasgow's high expenditure per head, compared with other authorities and measured against the performance of other authorities against guidelines, leaves me in no doubt that its rates must come down, especially as the council itself accepts that half of the reduction I propose is ready and waiting to go back to the ratepayers.
I have outlined the main reasons why it is vital to restrain local government spending where it is excessive and unreasonable, and I have made out the detailed case against Glasgow. We shall come to the detailed cases against the others later this evening.
Before I end, I want to say a brief word about the role of the official Opposition in this matter. I have already described briefly how the Labour Government imposed the biggest ever reduction in rate support grant percentage and the biggest ever reduction in expenditure on manpower in 1976–77. It is true that they did it only under duress, with the IMF breathing down their neck, but the point is that they did it. There was no talk then of"destroying local democracy". There were no cries of the "destruction of local democracy". Local authorities, particularly Conservative-controlled authorities, showed great responsibility in doing all that they could to help the right hon. Gentleman to reach his target of cuts.
Indeed, my attention was drawn to an interesting report on the views of local government in this connection. The report gives the view of a local government spokesman, who said:
"We have just got the feeling that the Government are being rather obdurate in their attitude and, as someone remarked, it is about time that the Government should start restoring 'local' into government as far as the Scottish scene is concerned."
The report went on:
"The Convention's concern reflects the deterioration in the good relations local authorities had until lately with the Scottish Office, Councils feel they have done everything in their power to reduce substantially expenditure this year, yet the Scottish Office have accused them of over-budgeting and have suggested that councils might consider re-.examining their estimates".
Those are not my words but the words of Mr. George Sharp, the president of COSLA, on 24 April 1976. I hope that that quotation lays once and for all the idea that the Labour party has a monopoly of views on the subject because it had to face the same problems when in office.
Mr. Tom Clarke: George Sharp made that comment when he was president of COSLA and I was vice-president. Things have deteriorated since. If the Secretary of State is correct in his version of what happened, does that not make it more difficult for local authorities to impose still more cuts?
Mr. Younger: That is a helpful intervention. It is helpful to have the vice-president to add his imprimatur to that quotation. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have sympathy with anyone who has to try to reduce spending, because it is difficult to do. As anyone who has had to tackle the problem knows, those who manage their affairs well are good at it. It is part of the good management which everyone must practise.
When the right hon. Member for Govan was in charge he was given remarkable assistance. Instead of crying, "Destruction of local services", local authorities, particularly those that were Conservative-controlled, showed great responsibility and did all that they could to help the right hon. Gentleman to reach his target for cuts. Only a small number of Labour-controlled authorities did not co-operate and paid no attention—even to him.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Secretary of State has used the words "responsibility" and "sympathy". Will he confirm that because of his responsibility and sympathy he refused to accept any more public expenditure cuts at this morning's Cabinet meeting?
Mr. Younger: I have no intention of giving an account of what may or may not have taken place at Cabinet this morning. If hon. Members think that I am just talking without taking action they may like to know that in my time at the Scottish Office we have had a tough time trying to reduce spending and manpower. The Scottish Office staff has been reduced by more than 1,000 in that time. That is extremely difficult and I have genuine sympathy with those who have to try to reduce spending.
Mr. John Maxton: How has the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in reducing expenditure and will he compare that with the local authority cuts that he is imposing today?
Mr. Younger: I knew that it was a good idea to give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) because he makes my point. There is no comparison between the manpower reductions.
Because of the background that I have explained I must describe the position taken by the right hon. Member for Govan and his hon. Friends now as quite irresponsible and thoroughly discreditable. They are deliberately giving the impression to local authorities today that if a Labour Government were in power they would allow them to spend whatever they like. I read something to that effect in the Labour party mainfesto.
The Labour party does not accept a reduction in the rate of grant and it does not agree with selective action against local authorities. It takes that line with complete cynicism, knowing that even a Labour Government would have to place limits on overspending and that they did so when last in office. The Labour party should remember that it reduced the rate of RSG by 6·5 per cent. over two years between 1975–76 and 1977–78. We have also reduced it, but by 6·8 per cent. over four years. The comparison is interesting and I hope that the right hon. Member for Govan will address himself to it.—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is making his usual excellent speech from a sedentary position. They are always his best speeches. They are much better than the speeches that he makes when standing.
The Opposition are acting as we have come to expect, as the permanent Opposition, who know that it will be many years before they have to face the responsibilities of Government—if they ever do.
The Opposition are doing something worse on this occasion. They are trying to use local government to prevent central Government from attaining national economic objectives. They are doomed to failure because no Government can allow such a dangerous challenge to their central strategy. Even though they will fail, their attitude is gravely damaging to the balance between local and central Government. Each has its own task.
Central Government have to run the whole economy and they stand or fall by their success in doing that. Local government has to provide local services under statutes passed by Parliament within the framework of national economic policy. The Labour party, if it has not already
582
lost its self-respect, should be deeply ashamed of what it is doing to damage the essential relationship between central and local government.
Of course, the Opposition try to make out that all this is the fault of the Government alone — that is their natural task as Opposition—but the general public can see one thing very clearly. It can see that the Labour party has no concern at all for the ratepayer. It would gladly let local government spending soar upwards and the burden of rates spiral upwards with it. Everyone in Britain—individuals, families, businesses and industries — is doing their utmost to save money to help our country through these difficult times.
The only people who are not pulling their weight in this great national effort, are a few recalcitrant local authorities aided and abetted by the Opposition.
We are considering only Glasgow district council in this report. I hope that the House will agree that I have made a strong and compelling case to show that its proposed expenditure is excessive and unreasonable and I therefore commend the report to the House.
4.28 pm
Mr. Bruce Millan: I have never heard a speech in the House as full of humbug and hypocrisy as that by the Secretary of State. I shall deal first with the general situation, since this is the first of four debates, and then with the report against Glasgow.
I shall not spend much time on the general argument, but, as I have said on numerous occasions, all Governments have an interest in local authorities and wish to influence their expenditure but this Government have taken unprecedented steps in relation to local authority expenditure. For the first time in the history of local government, central Government have taken powers to control the level of expenditure by individual local authorities. This is the first Government to take powers to override the rate decision-making powers of local authorities and to supersede rate decisions by individual authorities. If local government's power to determine its own level of expenditure and rates is removed, the essential functions of local government are removed, and ultimately local authorities become the agents or creatures of central Government. That is just what the Secretary of State is doing through these four motions.
That is why it is accepted by a much wider body of opinion than that in Scotland alone—as evidenced in the article in today's edition of The Times—that we are dealing not with a simple matter of minor penalties against a few Scottish local authorities, but with the whole constiotutinal relationship between central and local government. The Government—the most centralist of Governments ever known in this country—are attacking the very roots of local democracy. Moreover, we understand that what is happening in Scotland is to happen in England and Wales as well. We are also told that there will be further legislation for Scotland later in the Session.
Therefore, all the Secretary of State's protestations about his interest in local democracy and decision-making are utter humbug. His speech was an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members. The Government's main justification for their actions is that somehow local government expenditure is out of control, so they must have tighter control over local government. However, the reality is entirely different. I shall quote figures given by the Secretary of State himself in the debate on the rate

583
support grant on 17 January 1983. Total relevant expenditure by local authorities in Scotland went up from £2,351 million in real terms in 1978–79 to £2,429 million in 1981–82. That is an increase in real terms of about 3 per cent. over the three years, or about 1 per cent. per year. In 1981–82 local authority expenditure in Scotland fell in real terms compared with 1980–81.
We do not yet have the final figures for 1982–83 with which to make a comparison, but I should be astonished if they did not show something like the same trend as in the previous three years. At most I believe that they will show a real increase in expenditure of about 1 per cent. over the previous year, although they may not even show that. The Secretary of State, in a letter that he sent to some of us yesterday, included a very misleading passage about local authority expenditure in the current year being budgeted to increase in real terms. However, the figures that he gave on 31 March in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) show that when the 1982–83 budgets for local authorities in Scotland are compared with the 1983–84 budgets, there is an increase in cash terms of 5 per cent., but in real terms the increase between 1982–83 and 1983–84 is nil.
Therefore, Scottish local authorities have had standstill budgets in 1983–84 compared with 1982–83. At the end of this year I believe that expenditure in real terms will be at a standstill again. It is interesting to compare those modest expenditure increases in the past four or five years with what has happened to rates in Scotland. Of course, those increases have been nothing like modest. Again, I shall use figures that the Secretary of State has given in parliamentary answers.
On 23 December 1982, in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), it was shown that between 1978–79 and 1982–83 the unfortunate domestic ratepayer in Scotland suffered an increase in rates of 139 per cent. There was an increase in real expenditure in that period of about 4 per cent. and an increase in rates of about 139 per cent. However, the discrepancy between those two figures is easily explained. The increasing rates burden on the shoulders of ratepayers in Scotland — for whom the Secretary of State is constantly weeping crocodile tears—is due to inflation, high interest rates and cuts in Government support to Scottish local authorities. That is why rates have increased so alarmingly in the past few years.
The figures were confirmed in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) on 30 June 1983. The figures—they are the Prime Minister's figures, so I suppose that that gives them additional authority—show that between 1977–78 and 1981–82, the last year for which figures are given, the percentage of local government expenditure in Scotland provided for by central Government fell from 68·8 per cent. to 58·3 per cent.
It is part of the Secretary of State's "triumph" that whereas in 1977–78 Scotland had 68·8 per cent. of its local authority expenditure refunded by central Government compared with 64·5 per cent. for the United Kingdom, under the Secretary of State's stewardship the figures for Scotland in 1981–82 are exactly the same as the United Kingdom's average. Therefore, the advantage that Scotland once enjoyed had completely disappeared by 1981–82. I believe that the 1982–83 figures will show that Scotland is now getting less in grants in percentage terms
584
from central Government than the average for Me United Kingdom. The Secretary of State has shamefully betrayed Scotland's interests.
Every time we debate this issue, the Secretary of State trots out the reduction in the rate support grant by the Labour Government in 1977–78. The Labour Government, when they came in in 1974, inherited a rate support grant, on a comparable basis, of 66·5 per cent. In 1975–76 we increased that to 73·5 per cent. in order to give special help to Scottish local authorities to deal with local government reorganisation. In 1976–77, when that reorganisation had largely been adjusted for, we reduced it by 1 per cent., and in the subsequent year we made the reduction of 4 per cent. that the Secretary of State trots out in every rate support grant speech that he makes in the House. That reduced the percentage of grant in that year to 68·5 per cent., which was still 2 per cent. higher than the figure that we inherited from the Tory Government in 1973–74. Therefore, the Secretary of State need not pretend that everything that has happened in the past few years also happened under the Labour Government, and need not quote the reduction in 1977–78 as some sort of justification for his argument. It is utter nonsense. Unless the Secretary of State is even more ignorant of local government finance than I believe him to be, he must know that it is utter nonsense to make such points.
The immediate background to the reports was well laid out in the answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South on 31 March. That showed that local authorities in Scotland had budgeted for the current year at no less than £253 million over and above the Secretary of State's guidelines. In so doing they had budgeted for a financial standstill. However, they were still £253 million above the guidelines, because the guidelines bore no relation to realities. We told the Secretary of State that the guidelines were nonsense when we debated the rate support grant in January. Of the 65 authorities in Scotland, only three are within the guidelines. As we predicted, the other 62 are above the guidelines. In some instances they are much in excess of them because the guidelines are meaningless.
If Conservative Members represent areas that will not be affected by the penalties, they should not assume that the authorities in their constituencies will not be penalised in the current year. I am sure that within the next few days the Secretary of State will impose a general clawback on Scottish local authorities. Will that happen? If it is to happen, the House will have been shamefully misled on several occasions, not to mention this afternoon.
Mr. Younger: I have frequently said that I think it very likely that there may have to be a general abatement. I have not yet worked out the level of the abatement, but I shall tell the House about it as soon as possible.
Mr. Millan: That will be a change. The clawback for 1982–83 was announced on 28 July 1982, before the House started its summer recess. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has another clawback in mind. We ask that it be announced to the House before the start of the summer recess next week. It should not be announced in a way that is convenient to the Government when the House is in recess and is not able to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. Every local authority in Scotland will be penalised by the clawback and the announcement will be

585
made very soon. If all the stories that we read in the press about further public expenditure cuts come to pass, we may have a considerable clawback in store for us.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Many local authorities have taken great trouble to keep their expenditure low for a long time. Surely that is a good reason why the few authorities that greatly overspend should not be allowed to get away with that.
Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman will be in for a shock when he considers the position not only of the authority that has control in his constituency but of other authorities which have made efforts to control their expenditure. Many authorities in Scotland will be in for a shock.
Local authority expenditure in Scotland has been under control for the past four or five years and it remains under control. It is a falsehood to claim that it is not as a justification for the penalty provisions. I have referred to the figures. If the Secretary of State want to deny or challenge them, he, or one of his junior Ministers, will be able to do so later. All the figures that I have used this afternoon have been provided by the Secretary of State and his Department. They explode the claimed justification for the penalties.
We have repeatedly made it clear that we do not accept that the guidelines are realistic. They should not be used in any circumstances as a basis for penalising individual authorities. In any event, they are drawn up in a strange way, although they used to be formulated in an even stranger way which meant that no one quite knew what factors were taken into account. The Secretary of State calculates what the expenditure need of an individual authority should be in accordance with the factors that go to make up the guidelines. At the end of the day adjustments are made to those calculations. This is an odd way to produce figures that are supposed to give guidance to authorities — they are now more than a guide — on what they can expend in the year to come.
Shetland is unique because it has been budgeted further beyond the guidelines-46 per cent. —than any other authority in Scotland. The Secretary of State told us that after talking to representatives of the Shetland islands council he became aware of the problems that the authority was facing. He learnt that there was oil off Shetland and he heard about Sullam Voe. Apparently, he did not know about those factors before he announced that he would impose a penalty on Shetland. He heard also that Shetland has problems with education, population and roads.
I never expected the Secretary of State to implement the Shetland penalty. He knows that if that were to happen, the Shetland authority could make life difficult for him in respect of oil development. Accordingly, he withdrew. That withdrawal had nothing to do with changed circumstances. He caved in because the authority made it clear that, if he did not, he would suffer considerable oil development penalties. That is the reality. The decision not to go ahead with the penalty had nothing to do with the guidelines, more traffic using the roads on Shetland and more pupils in the schools. It had nothing to do with all the nonsense to which we listened this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman. All the factors that he mentioned have been known for years. If the guidelines were to mean anything, they should have been
586
incorporated in them in the first place. If they were not, the absurdity of the way in which the guidelines were formulated is clearly demonstrated.
As a Glasgow Member for many years, I am rather surprised to learn that if I want to consider the problems of Glasgow in comparison with similar Scottish authorities, one of the similar authorities is Cumbernauld. That is an extraordinary proposition. Another "similar" authority is Aberdeen. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will agree that, whatever else we may think about the respective merits of Aberdeen and Glasgow, it is ludicrous to compare the two cities in terms of local services, for example; and to compare Glasgow with Cumbernauld is a bit of a sick joke. The article in today's edition of The Times says that it would be equivalent to comparing the Isle of Skye with the Isle of Dogs. It is almost as ludicrous as that.
Mrs. Anna McCurley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problems that he is specifically talking about are the responsibility not of Glasgow district council, the authority that the debate is about, but, in the main, of Strathclyde regional council, which we are not talking about?
Mr. Millan: I do not agree. If the hon. Lady will do me the courtesy of looking at the guideline figures and how they are made up, she will find that what she said is misguided and untrue.
Mrs. McCurley: What services?
Mr. Millan: The services are laid out in the circular on the guidelines. I ask the hon. Lady to look at it.
Apart from expenditure per head in Glasgow inevitably being higher than expenditure in other districts in Scotland, this begs the question of local government decision-making. Are we trying to say that every local authority in Scotland should spend the same amount of money on the same services or should work to the same standards, and that anybody who goes above or below those standards is somehow committing a sin? Local government is about making choices and allowing the elected members to decide in some cases to spend more than the average or in other to spend less than the average. If it is not about that, it would be as well to ask every local authority to act simply as an agent for the Government, with standard laid down from the centre. That is what the Secretary of State is trying to do.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: With regard to the responsibility of the Government and of local government, which is central to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, can he tell me how many electors benefit from an increase in expenditure by the Glasgow district council without contributing to it and what proportion of the funds spent by that authority are actually contributed by the electors?
Mr. Millan: I gave some figures for local authorities as a whole. It is my considered opinion, as a ratepayer in Glasgow, that we require more money spent on services because many of the services, due to Government cuts and pressures, are inadequate to meet the citizens' needs. There should be more expenditure on services in Glasgow. If there is any—
Mrs. McCurley rose—
Mr. Fairbairn rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have three hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
Mr. Fairbairn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Millan: No.
Mr. Fairbairn: It is on a matter that requires an answer.
Mr. Millan: I shall not give way. If any Conservative Member could ever get himself elected to Glasgow, I might give way.
I shall now deal with the £4 million, which, the Secretary of State agrees, should never have been taken into account when he issued the first warning to Glasgow that he would impose a penalty. I shall deal first with when it became known to the Secretary of State that there had been the error of £4 million. That error was made not by the Glasgow district council but by the Secretary of State's office. The Secretary of State said that he got to know about this on about 23 June. I do not know the exact date, but that does not matter. It was some time in June.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon. Friend did not say that.
Mr. Millan: All right. I shall deal with the matter specifically. The hon. Gentleman has just taken over responsibility for these matters in the Scottish Office. I do not think that he knows anything about them. His hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is now dealing with something else. He will know about it because he, with the Secretary of State, was at a meeting with COSLA on 22 April, when the specific point about the £4 million was drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. That is not what the Secretary of State said this afternoon.—[HON. MEMBERS: "He said June."] He said June this afternoon, but he knew in April.
Mr. Younger indicated assent.
Mr. Millan: The Secretary of State is now agreeing with me. When did he initiate the action against Glasgow city council? Was it not in June? The Secretary of State is now acknowledging that the £4 million so-called error was known to his Department and to him personally, because it is recorded in the minutes of the meeting on 22 April. Why did he write that extremely misleading, dishonest and untruthful letter to hon. Members yesterday? It stated that the £4 million
"was only clarified in the course of discussion of the Council's representations."
Those were between June and July. Now the Secretary of State tells us that he knew all about it since 22 April.
Mr. Younger: As I made clear, the first time that the error in the drawing up of the form by Glasgow district council was drawn to our attention was 22 April.
Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that. He denied that.
Mr. Younger: Let us be clear. It was on 22 April, which was the date of the COSLA meeting to which I referred. It was brought up by a member of the district council. That was the first time that the matter was raised. It was a relevant matter for us to consider with Glasgow district council when representatives came to see my hon.
588
Friend the Under-Secretary of State. They met him and clarified the nature of the error. That is perfectly clear and there is nothing extraordinary about it.
Mr. Millan: We shall be able to look at the record in Hansard tomorrow to see what the Secretary of State said.
Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman will change it.
Mr. Millan: I hope that there will be no attempt to change the record, because that would be completely out of order.
I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech and specifically pointed out that the matter had been drawn to his attention on 22 April. He denied that in his speech. The letter written yesterday is the most dishonest letter that I have ever received from the Secretary of State. What is more, he knows it.
Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to accuse an hon. Member of dishonesty?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not in order. I do not think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman did. If he did, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw it.
Mr. Millan: I stand by everything that I said. We shall see on the record everything that the Secretary of State said. Whatever he said, yesterday he wrote an extremely misleading letter to me and to other Glasgow Members of Parliament. He cannot deny that.
In a sense, whatever the truth is, the really important issue is that the Secretary of State has steadfastly refused to take out the £4 million and to recalculate the figures. That means that the report takes on an entirely different complexion. Appendix B deals with expenditure per head of population. Glasgow's increase from 1982–83 to 1983–84, once the £4 million is taken out, comes down to 3·7 per cent. However, the increase in closely comparable districts is 5·5 per cent., and that in all districts 6 per cent. Therefore, Glasgow's increase is less than the comparable districts and less than the average for Scotland.
If we examine the trends of expenditure, we find that Glasgow increased expenditure in 1983–84 compared with 1982–83 by 3·7 per cent. That increase is less than for other districts in Scotland at 6·3 per cent. Yet Glasgow is being singled out for penalty because, according to the Secretary of State's original calculations—which he now admits were made on a mistaken premise — its increase in expenditure for the current year is excessive and out of line with so-called comparable and other districts in Scotland. When the figures are adjusted to take account of the £4 million, Glasgow's increase is less, not more, than that in comparable districts.
If one examines the figures that were given in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden on Thusday 30 June for expenditure on services in Glasgow—
Mr. Fairbairn: What services?
Mr. Millan: —after taking interest adjustments out of account and comparing them over several years, one finds that, taking the £4 million out of account, in 1979–80 expenditure in Glasgow was £82·27 million while in 1983–84, calculated on the same basis, it is only £78·92 million. Those are strictly comparable figures which the Secretary of State gave. In other words, compared with

589
three or four years ago, real expenditure on services in Glasgow has been reduced rather than increased, yet Glasgow is singled out for the penalty provision that we are discussing. Many more figures could be quoted, but, taking out the £4 million, there is no case for the penalty order.
The Secretary of State is exercising political spite against local authorities in Scotland of a different political persuasion from his own. That applies not merely to Glasgow. Glasgow, despite its major problems, has reduced expenditure in real terms in the past few years —as all Glasgow Members know to their cost.
The report is a general attack on local democracy. The ratepayers and electors of Scotland are getting poorer services and we are getting cuts in local authority spending that will add to the appalling high level of unemployment in Scotland. These penalty provisions are part of a wider attack on local government in Scotland. In a short time, they will affect every local authority in Scotland. The Secretary of State is replacing genuine local government in Scotland with dictatorship from St. Andrew's House, that is why we oppose the motion.
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker,. Five hon. Members on the Labour side of the House, all of whom represent the city of Glasgow and Glasgow district council, to which the report relates, want an opportunity to speak on it. Not one Conservative Member represents the district of Glasgow. Therefore, I seek your guidance on whether it is possible to call Glasgow Members before others.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall, of course, bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point, but we must remember that this is a United Kingdom Parliament.
5.4 pm
Mr. Michael Hirst: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) should be aware that my constituency locks on to Glasgow.
Mr. Foulkes: It is a parasite.
Mr. Hirst: It is the nearest of four points around Glasgow where we are attacking the Labour bastion. I am confident that Conservative Members will represent Glasgow constituencies in the next Parliament.
Mr. Foulkes: Where will the hon. Gentleman be cremated?
Mr. Hirst: In my maiden speech two weeks ago, when I was speaking of the archaelogical and historic interests in my constituency, I observed that the Antonine wall runs through it. It was built to keep unruly northern tribes to the north. Some hon. Members and distinguished strangers might reflect on the need for a modern Antonine wall.
It will be no surprise to Opposition Members to learn that I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in taking selective action against those local authorities that have spending plans that appear to undermine the Government's broad economic strategy. After two years of restraint, Glasgow is proposing a significant increase in spending. In the medium and the short term, Glasgow's spending per head has been rising faster than that of other local authorities. My right hon.
590
Friend gave the House the figures this afternoon—£107 per head in Glasgow as compared with the upper £60s in practically every other city in Scotland.
I should like to be convinced that the Labour administration of Glasgow district council is not using its budget as a means of confrontation with the Government. It is hard to avoid feeling that some people might relish the opportunity for a little confrontation with my right hon. Friend. Opposition Members have been complaining vigorously today that the Government are interfering with local democracy. Initially, I thought that that might be so but Opposition Members conveniently forget that the Government are making a massive contribution to what is spent in Glasgow. Accordingly, they have a right to say how the money is spent.
Opposition Members who make so much of the wishes of the electorate ought to reflect on the number of people in Glasgow who took the trouble to vote at the 1980 district council elections. Glasgow district council was elected on a small proportion of the electorate — something less than 20 per cent. Domestic ratepayers in Glasgow contribute rather less than 10 per cent. of what Glasgow district council spends. That represents about £34 million. I want to speak up for the other ratepayers in Glasgow who pay much more—some £80 million—and yet have no right of representation and no vote about who should sit in the city chambers in Glasgow. I speak of the commercial and industrial ratepayers who have no way of protecting themselves from rate increases in Glasgow, short of moving out of the city.
I shall declare my interest. As I have already told the hon. Member for Cathcart, who has now left the Chamber, my constituency locks on to the Glasgow boundary. I have many constituents who work or run businesses in Glasgow.
Mr. Foulkes: And take the money out.
Mr. Hirst: Not at all. I have spent all of my working life in Glasgow and I know well the reaction of the business community, which is bled white year in and year out by increases in rates. Rates in Glasgow have risen from 26·5 p to 61p over five years—an increase of about 130 per cent. One of the councils in my constituency that is slap bang beside Glasgow has, by contrast, increased rates by less than 40 per cent. during the same period.
There is understandable dismay that, after two years of moderation in Glasgow, the authority has put its foot on the spending accelerator once again. One need not be a Glasgow Member to know about the businesses that have been driven out because of high local authority rates. Every day small shopkeepers and commercial and retail organisations are driven out of business because they can no longer—[Interruption.]—Opposition Members must let me tell them some of the facts of life. Lewis's department store on Argyle street pays rates at 2·5 times more per square foot than those paid by its comparable stores south of the border. How can that organisation continue to provide employment for Glasgow people in the face of such high rates? Not only does it pay 2·5 times more per square foot than its sister shops south of the border, but it pays more rates than Harrods.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the percentage of the Glasgow budget contributed by central Government has decreased during the past few years from more than 40 per cent. to

591
about 30 per cent.? If he is really worried about rising rates, the simplest and most sensible thing for him to do would be to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to maintain the Government's contribution.
Mr. Hirst: That is the typical Socialist remedy—simply to spend. The Opposition believe that the Government are the milch cow that constantly provides. It is a trite and easy answer to say that the Government should spend more money, but without saying where that money will come from. The example of the Scottish local authority that suffered a great reduction in rate support grant in 1976 was foisted upon other local authorities because of previous Socialist profligacy. It is sad that the Opposition appear not to understand that high rates are a significant contributory factor to businesses closing and jobs being lost. If Opposition Members were sincere in their desire to create more jobs in Scotland, they would recognise that fact and use their undoubted influence with local authorities of the same political persuasion to tell them of the need for restraint iii local government spending.
The Labour party has accused the Government of unwarranted interference in local authority decision-making. I am sorry that it has been necessary for the Government to take these powers. However, that is preferable to exposing ratepayers to increases year after year, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was prepared to come to the rescue of hard-pressed ratepayers.
During the general election campaign my right hon. Friend attended several meetings at which he articulated the Government's intentions on rates. Those proposals have won wide support—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Among the communities that have to pay the rates.
Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State did not even get half the votes in Ayr.
Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) should be careful when bandying about figures for the general election. If the Conservative party had lost 250,000 votes, I would not be here now. Many figures have been bandied about this afternoon, especially by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan)—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear what is being said.
Hon. Members: "You are lucky."
Mr. Hirst: Rather than confuse the House by quoting more figures, I shall try to clarify the matter. The argument is about the savings that are required. The letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which has been referred to constantly this afternoon, states:
"Of this proposed reduction of £6 million, the District Council accepted that at least £3 million could be saved without any effect on services because of an additional capital allocation which I made to them. This leaves savings of £3 million which I propose that Glasgow District Council should make in their expenditure."
The nub of the problem is that £3 million savings must be made. Conservative Members find it strange that the achievement of such a reduction has caused such a major headache to Opposition Members.
All Scottish Members have received a letter from COSLA, which stated that there was no case for the Secretary of State to consider taking punitive action, especially since such action would ultimately be adverse
592
to the interests of ratepayers. I cannot understand how it is adverse to the interests of Scottish ratepayers for the Secretary of State to protect them from unwarranted increases.
If the Opposition are in some difficulty in appreciating from where savings can come, perhaps I may put forward some areas where savings might be made. My right hon. Friend told us about the Contingency Reserve. Why is it so high? Could there not be savings in that, or is it being held in reserve against next year's increase? My colleagues on Glasgow district council proposed that the architectural services be put out to private tender at a saving of £1 million. If that is a viable proposition, why do not the Opposition espouse it as a means of saving ratepayers' money and of contributing to the savings that the Secretary of State wishes to make? The simple difference is that the Conservative party has no ideological hang-up about who does the work. If it can be done more cheaply and efficiently by an outside contractor, it should be given to that contractor.
The district council spends much money on cleansing, but I am unaware of any study being undertaken to put that service out to tender. I do not say that that should be an automatic response, not do I suggest that it would produce an automatic saving. A local authority in my constituency that reviewed the matter concluded that it was doing the job efficiently enough and should retain it. However, at least that authority considered the matter. I wish that Glasgow district council had considered the matter and concluded that no reasonable savings could be made.
My next point—
Mr. Foulkes: Come on.
Mr. Hirst: Opposition Members may protest, but someone must put forward areas of possible saving. I am not simply talking about the principle, but expressing some opinions. There are 6,000 empty houses in Glasgow, almost half of which are empty because they need repairs. Are the Opposition Members who have so much to say about the matter satisfied that proper use is being made of the contractors who could make those houses ready for letting? There are potential savings in that area, and I should be glad if Opposition Members would consider it.
Mr. Fairbairn: One of the greatest complaints made by Opposition Members about the House and many other places is that there are too many lawyers. How many lawyers does the legal department of Glasgow district council employ, and what on earth do they do?
Mr. Hirst: Housing management in Glasgow is expensive. It costs 50 per cent. more to manage a house in Glasgow than it does in other authorities.
Mr. Robin Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hirst: No. I must press on and finish my speech.
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Hirst: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I must press on.
My final point relates to the building and works department — that notorious direct labour organisation whose past activities are well chronicled in Hansard. The popular conception in Glasgow is that the department is heavily overmanned. I shall examine with keen interest its performance report, but am almost certain that it will be shown to be less efficient than the Scottish Special

593
Housing Association. The department is fortunate in that it can, at ratepayers' expense, follow a policy of no compulsory redundancies. Sadly, the small companies that could do building repairs more cheaply, efficiently and quickly cannot give their employees the same undertaking. It is remarkable that local authorities cannot find the savings readily and fairly easily. Private enterprise has had to tighten its belt time and again and local authorities have no divine right to exemption from the disciplines that operate elsewhere in the market.
The Opposition stigmatise the Government as hard-nosed and uncaring and accuse it of making things difficult for Glasgow. The Government have invested £135 million in major projects which are doing a great deal to improve the face of Glasgow. Those actions underline the Government's determination to ensure that local authorities, like the nation, live within their means. I do not believe that what the Secretary of State has sought is unacceptable or unreasonable.
5.20 pm
Mr. Roy Jenkins: I listened with great interest and considerable agreement to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), but I do not agree that the Secretary of State's letter was the most dishonest from a Minister or his speech the most hypocritical to be heard in the House. Those are extremely strong claims and I do not think that the Secretary of State justified them in his letter or in his speech.
The Secretary of State spoke very fast. He seemed to be galloping hard towards the recess hoping that nobody would catch him before he got there. One was reminded of the comment:
"The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons."
What has happened in Glasgow is a tangled story. I was confused as to whether the Secretary of State had admitted that the council had told him about the £4 million. I do not understand why he said that it was an error. It is a matter of judgment under which heading it is put. At any rate, there was some confusion, but he made it clear that he had been so informed on 22 April.
The lesson of this and other confusions and the fact that the appendices are not an accurate back-up to what the Secretary of State is doing is that he and his Department are trying to do something which they ought not to do, are not qualified to do and do not have the resources to do. It is not the duty of the Government or the Scottish Office to determine the exact level of rates in Glasgow or any other city or district in the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State or other Ministers attempt to do that, they will need to build up a vast new bureaucracy. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) had better realise that the bureaucracy in the Scottish Office will be far greater even than the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) suggests. If this is done, there will have to be lawyers and goodness knows how many other people. Otherwise, it will be done by punching in the dark without the Scottish Office or the Government knowing what they are doing.
The Lane report was eloquent about how much bureaucracy would be involved in central control of local government expenditure, quite apart from its inherent
594
undesirability on democratic grounds, but basic point is that the Secretary of State is trying to do something that is not the duty of central Government.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government, who fund the Health Service wholly and exclusively, have no interest in the level of rates and the impact on the health authority in the area?
Mr. Jenkins: Of course the Government have an interest in that, as has the House and, indeed, business. It is no good just dismissing the business interest, as people try to do in answer to the rather provocative argument of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, because it is important, but that is very different from saying that the fixing of the rate level should be taken out of local hands and vested in central Government.
Mr. Fairbairn rose—
Mr. Jenkins: I must get on. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a lot of interruptions and although he makes very good ones it would be an idea if he would make a speech occasionally.
No responsible Government can be indifferent to the level of local government expenditure. The Government are clearly entitled to fix their own contribution and to have a substantial and controlling say in the level of borrowing. I do not wish to open up the wider issues of the power of a Scottish assembly, in which I believe, but I have always taken the view that a Scottish assembly should have substantial rights to raise taxation. Nevertheless, it should not have the right to run an unbalanced budget. Once that happens, we are on the road to a separate currency and I do not believe that the people of Scotland want that. That is the essential difference between raising revenue that one is prepared to pay for and raising revenue that one is not prepared to pay for.
What is the real position of Glasgow? It is a tangled story, but so far as I can make out Glasgow is a high spender compared with other Scottish local authorities. Does that surprise anyone? It is certainly no surprise to anyone who knows that city. Apart from the specific problems, the underlying difficulty is that the population has fallen from more than 1,100,000 just over 20 years ago to 800,000 now.
Mr. Fairbairn rose—
Mr. Jenkins: I wish that the hon. and learned Gentleman would keep quiet for a moment.
The problems of Glasgow are thus immensely greater than those of Shetland, which has a fluctuating but rising population. It is therefore not surprising that the level of expenditure per head in Glasgow with all its problems is high. Indeed, it would be a bad thing if that were not so. The recent rate of increase in Glasgow's expenditure seems in fact to have been rather low compared with many other Scottish local authorities. Nevertheless, rates in Glasgow are very high indeed.
I wish to comment on two aspects of the powerfully argued report presented by the Glasgow district council. Referring to the shrinkage of the city's manufacturing base, it says that
"the city's future probably lies outwith the field of manufacturing industry— in commerce, the service sector, tourism and the like."

595
There may be something in that, but it would be extremely foolish to believe that very high rate levels are not inimical to such developments. There must be a sensible approach.
The report also states:
"The District Council comprises 72 members elected by the people of Glasgow on the basis of their respective manifestos."
That may be so, but they are not elected on the basis of their respective proportions of the votes cast. If that were so, the Glasgow district council would be far more representative, on a local rather than on a central basis, far more responsible and much closer to the people in its approach to the essential issue of rate responsibility.
I oppose what the Secretary of State is doing, not because there are not problems with which he has to deal but because he is going in for excessive interference from the centre in local democratic decisions. That is the wrong road and it will lead him into great trouble in the future.
5.29 pm
Mr. Jim Craigen: I agree with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) that what is at issue is the relationship between central Government and local government. The right hon. Gentleman used the usual alliance skill, in that even in a debate on the Rate Reduction (Glasgow District) 1983–84 Report he managed to introduce the issue of proportional representation. At times, when the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) was speaking, I thought that we were attending a meeting of the Glasgow district council. In dealing with these reports, the danger is that we sometimes end up doing the job of councillors when our job is to legislate.
The Secretary of State seemed to imply that I begrudged Shetlands its reprieve from the hit list. That is not so. I was wondering what its secret was, and I am still in some doubt. There is no question but that the £4 million that was inadvertently included by the Scottish Office in the figures led to Glasgow district council being put on the hit list and it has remained on it as a political face saver for the Secretary of State.
Mr. Younger: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead anybody. Whoever was right and whoever was wrong in this issue, it is clear that that figure was included in the paper by Glasgow district council, not by the Scottish Office.
Mr. Craigen: Has the Secretary of State never heard of the telephone and good communications between New St. Andrew's House and Glasgow district council? Many things could have been sorted out quickly if there had been better communications between central Government and the local authority.
The Secretary of State was quoted in the press as saying:
"Let the punishment fit the crime".
I know that he is a great admirer of Gilbert and Sullivan, but he should read "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" one day because this issue is about who is to be master. In that book, Humpty Dumpty makes the point:
"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean."
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is using mixing metaphors.
Mr. Craigen: I do not mind the mixed metaphors; I just wish to establish the point.
The Secretary of State wants to make sure that he is the master. There will always be friction between local and
596
central Government, not least because of the differences of political view and also because of the respective differences in the roles of central and local government. However, this order introduces something new in the relationship between the two bodies. We already have guidelines, and the trouble facing many of the authorities is that they are not sure about the precision or indeed the mobility of those guidelines. They are constantly changed when it suits the Secretary of State. We all agree that rates are far too high. However, the Government have cut the rate support grant to local authorities, and in Glasgow there has been a reduction from 41 per cent. to 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1983.
The Government also control the level of approved expenditure, as well as adjusting the percentage of the rate support grant. The problem facing the city is as much one of income available as of expenditure incurred or about to be incurred. I have written to the Secretary of State about a report leaked from the Greater Glasgow health board during the election campaign about hospital admissions during the first year of life. I have had a useful reply from the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board in which he rightly points out the interrelationship between the health services, housing, social work and education. I hope that the Secretary of State will back up the Greater Glasgow health board's initiative. We compartmentalise far too much of our public spending and sometimes the budget headings in one department have a direct relationship to the problems that may arise in another.
So far in the debate the £1 million for the Burrell collection has not been mentioned. Are we to take it from the Secretary of State that the padlock will be put on the door of the Burrell art gallery before it opens this autumn? The Government encouraged the district council to proceed with the building of the art gallery. The Prime Minister has said that she is critical of local authorities and other public bodies that do not spend on capital projects. I questioned her in a letter that I wrote to No. 10, asking why local authorities should spend on capital projects when they are denied the revenue expenditure to man those institutions—whether libraries, art galleries, schools or other facilities. I did not receive a particularly satisfactory answer.
Reference has been made to expenditure per head. I know that nothing can be done at this stage, but I put this up as a marker. In the forthcoming rate support grant settlements a new element must be introduced that takes account of the variations in income levels. When there is talk about introducing local income tax, we must remember that one of the problems that arises is the equalisation factor, as some areas are far better off than others simply because of levels of incomes and differences in the levels of unemployment of those areas. We know from figures published by the DHSS and Strathclyde regional council that 31·4 per cent. of the population is at or below supplementary benefit level in Glasgow. This is a major influence in the availability of resources to the district council. These variations should be taken into account in the rate support grant settlement.
Mr. Fairbairn: This is an important point about a community becoming poorer and poorer. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins)—

597
that over 333,000 people have moved from Glasgow, probably for income reasons? Is it not because of the rating system that they have done so?
Mr. Craigen: I was tempted to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman earlier and ask him whether he was in favour of agricultural rerating, although perhaps that is another issue. I am talking about expenditure per head of population and I am putting down a marker for future rate support grant settlements that the income levels of those communities should be taken into account.
The Secretary of State said earlier that it is not for him to say where the savings might be made. This raises the responsibility factor. Soon, no one will claim or accept responsibility or be responsible for anything. The Secretary of State says, "I give the money but I leave it to the district council or the local authority to determine its priorities. It so happens that my civil servants lay down such stringent guidelines that the local authority is sometimes in doubt about the make-up of these client groups and the nature of the expenditure, but I do not allow the local authority to do that of which I do not approve."
We shall end up by electing councillors next May who will not be able to do as much as the councillors elected in the last district council elections. If it is not too cynical, I point out that last week we were debating parliamentary orders over the timetabling of the rates. There was no suggestion then that we should introduce orders to postpone the district council elections in 1984. However, the way that we are going will make it increasingly difficult to get councillors of the calibre that we require. Many sensible, hard-working and right-thinking councillors are getting a bit cheesed off about the role that they are expected to fulfil in local government. The Conservative party has spent much time devising hit lists and introducing orders. Why are all those intellectual impulses not being put into rate reform, about which they have said so much during the past 10 years?
5.40 pm
Mrs. Anna McCurley: I want to take the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) to task. I sincerely hope that he will permit me to do so. I am particularly interested in the right hon. Gentleman's career because he is my Member of Parliament. I have a particular interest in the debate as a Glasgow ratepayer. The right hon. Gentleman tallked about Glasgow's problems. He opened the bleeding chunks of flesh, but he forgot to remind the House that we are not talking about the problems of social work or education—the problems that really beset the city of Glasgow—but about the problems that relate to Glasgow district council.
Glasgow district council is famous of old for its overspending. Why is it overspending? Glasgow district council is inefficient, over-bureaucraticised, overmanned and charges low council house rents to keep its own people happy so that it can get back into power at the direct expense of commerce and industry in Glasgow. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) articulated well the problems of Glasgow's commerce and industry. Business people in Glasgow do not have the representation although they contribute rates. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is attempting to stop Glasgow cutting its own throat.
598
Much of the debate the other day was spent talking about mandates and whether the House has a mandate over local authorities. Let me set the record right. Glasgow's total expenditure is £358 million. Of that domestic ratepayers contribute only 9·5 per cent. and they are the only people who have a vote. There is an average turnout of 35 per cent. at local government elections, 20 per cent. of which votes Labour. Therefore, by my calculations, one fifth of that 9·5 per cent. is contributed by Labour voters. Therefore, Labour Members are representing under 2 per cent. of the people of Glasgow and they talk about mandates. Commerce and industry contribute 22·5 per cent.—two and a half times the percentage contributed by the domestic ratepayer. The city is being bled dry. Small businesses are shutting down and large industries have a hard time competing. My hon. Friend talked about Lewis's in Argyle street, which pays over £1 million a year in rates, whereas Selfridge's, a comparable store but far larger in Oxford street, pays less. That is nonsense and it is destructive for the city. That is precisely what my rates are doing to Glasgow and that is why I fully support what the Government are doing. Unless the Government intervene in some way in the activities of Glasgow district council the city will fall apart. As a ratepayer in that city, I am not prepared to see that happen.
Mr. Fairbairn: Glasgow's business community is being frozen out by high rates. What proportion of those 2 per cent. who pay rates benefit from that increased expenditure?
Mrs. McCurley: Very few people. Only a small percentage of those who pay the full rate in Glasgow benefit from it because much of Glasgow's expenditure has been directed to specific areas. That means that the money is not spread around the divisions of Glasgow equitably and certainly not equally.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mrs. McCurley: We must remember—this is why I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said —that the Government are not averse to helping Glasgow. They are very sympathetic and support Glasgow with direct Government funding. Money pours into Glasgow—into the Maryhill corridor and the Glasgow eastern area of renewal.
The Conservative party takes care of Glasgow. We cannot be criticised for our treatment of Glasgow but we can criticise Labour Members for the way in which they try to destroy the city by protecting their own interests.
5.47 pm
Mr. Bob McTaggart: I have to admit to a deep sense of concern, even of alarm, over the business before the House this evening. We have before us a report from the Secretary of State for Scotland which asks the House to approve the imposition of penalties on four Scottish local authorities for what he calls "excessive and unreasonable expenditure".
There is not a shadow of a doubt that when the House divides tonight that approval will be given and those penalties will subsequently be imposed. There can be no other outcome, given the massive parliamentary majority that the Government enjoy. That inevitable course of events may seem unremarkable to many, both inside and outside the House, but if that is the case they have failed to pay sufficient attention to the detail of the issue before

599
us. There are, indeed, a number of worrying aspects to what can only be described as the cynical exercise of unaccountable power.
First, for those hon. Members who have followed the evidence closely, there is the inescapable conclusion that the Secretary of State has failed to make his case for taking action against those authorities. The detailed representations made by the authorities themselves, and the arguments outlined in the contributions of my right hon. and hon. Friends so far and which will no doubt continue, show clearly that the Secretary of State has built his case not on objective evidence but on a tissue of misrepresentation and half truths. That can be proved by examining the case of Glasgow district council.
The Under-Secretary of State met representatives of the Glasgow district council last month to discuss the proposed penalty. The minutes of that meeting form part of the report before us. When asked for a statement of why the Government were initiating action against the council, the Under-Secretary outlined three main reasons. First, he said that Glasgow had the highest percentage excess over guidelines of any district council in Scotland — well above the district council average of 21·8 per cent. However, the figures produced by the Secretary of State in support of that claim bear little relation to the real world of local government finance or to the real decisions that must be made by councillors about local services and local budgets.
The Government failed to take proper account of a whole range of factors in Glasgow's budget, which inevitably pushed it well over guidelines that were always unrealisable. They also failed to take into account that many of the factors are peculiar to Glasgow, making it indefensible to compare its budget with those of other district councils.
Hon. Members who have made the effort to look at the evidence will know to which factors I refer. Examples are — the running costs of the new Burrell gallery; the reclassification of the city's budget to include items previously treated as non-relevant expenditure—such as the £5 million budget for Glasgow's area management committees; and the inclusion of temporary loan interest in the expenditure figures, even though the council has no direct control over such expenditure. Any objective assessment could find only that that part of the Government's case could not be justified.
The second reason put forward by the Minister was supported by even weaker arguments in justification of an indefensible position. The Government claim that Glasgow's spending per head of population is well above the average for other closely comparable authorities. The choice of closely comparable authorities is unjustified. Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Falkirk are three of the wealthiest local authorities in terms of rateable income. Clydebank and Falkirk have populations that would be dwarfed by that of Glasgow. Cumbernauld is a new town with heavy public investment through the development corporation. Not one of those authorities faces the same scale of need or the same mix of environmental, social and economic problems as those that confront Glasgow which unavoidably, must have implications for Glasgow's level of expenditure. Two of those closely comparable authorities, Cumbernauld and Aberdeen, show increases in their spending per head of population well in excess of the increase shown by Glasgow.
600
The third reason put forward was that Glasgow's current budget represented a real growth in expenditure at a time when the Secretary of State had asked all authorities to make reductions in their spending. Again, no account was taken of the £4 million expenditure on environmental improvement grants that it was later admitted should have properly been considered as housing expenditure. No account was taken of the running costs of the new Burrell gallery or the cost of the transfer of functions from the region as a result of the Stodart report. No account was taken of the council's prudent provision for an inflation rate of 6 per cent. in the coming year. The whole basis of a major part of the Secretary of State's case falls apart on close inspection.
At the crucial meeting with Glasgow district council, the Under-Secretary put forward those three main reasons to justify action against Glasgow. Yet all the arguments have shown that none of those reasons can be supported by any objective evidence. The conclusion is inescapable —the Government's case for imposing penalties cannot be supported, even by their own evidence. The penalties are unfair, arbitrary and authoritarian.
Conservative Members who like to see themselves in the role of world-wide champions of democracy and freedom should reflect that tonight they will probably lend their support to Government action which, if repeated elsewhere in other countries, they would condemn as dictatorial and tyrannical. Massive parliamentary majorities do not excuse Governments from having to justify their actions on rational and logically defensible grounds. It is clear that the action that the House is being asked to sanction is neither rational nor logical. It is a frightening example of the naked exercise of massive political power which sees no reason to justify itself to those it directly affects.
There are other worrying aspects of the report to which the House should give careful consideration. It was brought before the House by the Secretary of State and is concerned with four Scottish local authorities. It deals with the financing of Scottish local government and with the relative financial burdens of Scottish ratepayers and taxpayers. It deals with what can be described only as Scottish business. Yet it is laid before the House by a Minister with no mandate from the people of Scotland, and it emanates from a Government whose policies have only recently been rejected by more than 70 per cent. of the Scottish electorate. Frankly, it is sponsored by a group of Scottish Office Ministers who have more in common with the colonial administration than with the legitimate executive arm of government in Scotland. It will receive the majority approval of the House not on the basis of votes by the elected representatives of the Scottish people, but of votes cast by many Conservative Members who know relatively little about Scottish affairs in general and even less about the affairs of the local authorities with which the report deals. Some of them may never have set foot on Scottish soil. No genuine believer in the democratic principle could be other than appalled at such a prospect.
Let us consider the results of the recent general election—
Mr. Fairbairn: Before we consider the results of the general election, can the hon. Gentleman tell me what percentage of those who vote in Glasgow— far fewer pay rates in Glasgow—actually voted for that wretched, spendthrift district council?
Mr. McTaggart: Ten out of every 11 voters in Glasgow voted Labour. I shall ignore that cumbersome and irrelevant intervention from someone who is not even domiciled in Scotland, let alone in Glasgow.
Let us consider the results of the general election, in which Scotland, especially urban Scotland, returned a majority of Labour Members to the House. It did so partly because of traditional loyalties—
Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) — I do not know whether it is in his script—that I am not domiciled in Scotland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point of information, not a point of order for me.
Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in in order for an hon. Member to suggest that I am not domiciled in Scotland when I have never been domiciled anywhere else?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that that is a point of information and not a point of order.
Mr. McTaggart: The hon. and leaned Gentleman is certainly not domiciled in Glasgow, about which he has made at least 10 interventions this evening.
I ask the House again to consider for a moment the results of the recent general election at which Scotland, particularly urban Scotland, returned a majority of Labour Members. It did so partly because of traditional loyalties but partly because of its particular social and economic make-up, which inevitably influences its political outlook. Glasgow illustrates that point effectively. Few areas in the United Kingdom can have been more severely affected by the present recession and by the policies of the present Government.
Last year unemployment in the city constantly hovered between 70,000 and 80,000. At the time of the 1981 census, no fewer than five of Glasgow's constituencies were in the top 10 United Kingdom constituencies with the highest rates of male unemployment. In the space of just two short years, between 1979 and 1981, it suffered the net loss of about 20,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone. It has continued ever since to lose industrial jobs of every description. One hundred thousand of Glasgow's citizens now claim supplementary benefit and many more depend on it. The city faces a severe housing crisis, with more thn 22,000 of its houses officially described as below the tolerable standard and a minimum of 35,000 public sector houses requiring treatment for the growing problem of damp.
For more than 30 years Glasgow's population has been in constant decline with a high proportion of those leaving coming from the more economically active groups. Inevitably, this has had serious implications for the social and economic make-up of the remaining population. Glasgow has a high proportion of less skilled and lower income workers' a much higher than average proportion of its population at or below the poverty line and massive problems of urban decay and multiple deprivation —problems recognised by the Government.
The people of Glasgow need lessons from no one on what it means to be at the wrong end of an unfair and unequal society, in which power and wealth are unevenly distributed and in which the opportunity to thrive and prosper is denied to hundreds and thousands of citizens.
602
The general election results in Glasgow do not decide who should form the Government. Glasgow has often voted Labour in the past and seen Tory Governments returned. Scotland has often voted Labour in the past and seen Tory Governments returned at Westminster. But this time there is a difference. This time the general election result is proving to have implications for local democracy which few voters could have contemplated at the time they cast their votes. Glasgow voters can accept that the party for which they voted lost the last general election, but they know that the party for which they voted won the last district council elections. In those elections they voted for the Labour party. They voted for a Labour district council and they won. The Labour district council in Glasgow prepared this year's budget. The Labour party in Glasgow district council prepared this year's rate poundage on the basis of a democratic mandate given to it by the voters of that city. If the council abuses that mandate it will answer for that abuse in the proper democratic fashion—at the elections in May 1984. In the meantime, anyone who interferes with that council in the proper exercise of its functions is interfering with the democratic process, and the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office Front Bench team know that well.
I appeal to hon. Members who are genuinely interested in defending the democratic traditions of this country to join the Labour party tonight in the Lobby in voting against this arbitrary and undemocratic Government action.
6.4 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) that the tenants of Glasgow district council pay cheap rents. The rents are far from cheap. My constituents are finding it increasingly difficult to pay their rents. It is nonsense to say that the tenants in Glasgow are paying cheap rents. This problem is the fault not of Glasgow district council but of the Government who have forced local authorities to increase their rents.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Martin: I am sorry, but I will not give way. Many hon. Members have intervened in the debate and I understand that the Minister wants to reply to the points that are raised. It would be unfair to other hon. Members if I were to give way.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) has left the Chamber. I am sorry that he made the remarks he made about Glasgow. It is nonsense to suggest that Glasgow and Glasgow alone is losing industry and to suggest that the reason for that is high rates. I happen to know a great deal about the hon. Gentleman's constituency because Springburn adjoins the Bishopbriggs area of Strathkelvin. The hon. Gentleman should know that at this very moment houses are being built on what used to be an industrial estate in Bishopbriggs. If the hon. Gentleman claims that Bishopbriggs is doing well in terms of low rates, why is it losing industry in the same way as Glasgow? The hon. Gentleman should also remember that Keir and Cowden Ltd. used to have a large brickworks in the Bishopbriggs area but it no longer exists. Many companies are leaving boroughs and areas around Glasgow, and so Glasgow is

603
not the only place to be losing industry. The services that the district council supplies benefit the people of Glasgow and those outside the city.
It is planned to build a bypass through my constituency. The large scale demolition will uproot many of my constituents. We will have a concrete monstrosity called a motorway just to accommodate the people of the Stepps. The quality of life in Springburn will diminish because of that motorway. When the hon. Gentleman attacks the Glasgow district council he should remember that many people in Bishopbriggs, Newton Mearns, Bearsden and the surrounding areas are employed by Glasgow district council.
It has always been my view—I am sure that it is shared by many hon. Members—that if an employer is in difficulties it is a duty of the local Member to ensure that an industry or service which happens to be a large employer of labour is protected. Many Conservative Members who have constituencies within travelling distance of Glasgow may well be receiving letters of complaint from their constituents about redundancies in the Glasgow district council. I should like to see the representations that go to the Secretary of State if that happens.
It is ridiculous to suggest that traders are leaving Glasgow because of high rates. Consider, for example, Marks and Spencer, one of the biggest employers in Britain. It is doing very nicely at its Bell street, Glasgow, branch, so well that the firm intends to spend millions of pounds extending those premises. It is across the street from Lewis's—I was in the city centre last weekend—and that company is not doing too badly out of Glasgow.
Mr. Craigen: My hon. Friend knows the Metal Box site and will recall that I saw the Prime Minister before the new year when the firm announced that it was closing that factory. During our conversation the Prime Minister suggested that rates might be the factor, but I said that I had established with the company that the main factor was the economic recession and a fall in the demand for tins.
Mr. Martin: I agree. Rates are not the only problem from which the private sector is suffering in Scotland. I am the chairman of the industry sub-committee of the Labour group in Scotland. We have had the Opportunity this year to meet various private employers and their organisations. The representatives of the building industry forcefully made the point that they were not pleased with Government policy generally or with cuts in public expenditure in particular. It depends on local government contracts more than any other industry, yet it is suffering the most as a result of Conservative policy. In other words, the Government are attacking not only those who voted for them but those who have supported them over the years.
In common with other hon. Members who represent constituencies some distance from this place, I had a good opportunity during the election campaign to be involved with my constituents. I had time to meet the people of Possil park, where I served my apprenticeship and where my wife lived. The quality of life in that area has deteriorated greatly in the last 10 or 12 years. The poverty is appalling, as is the rate of unemployment.
In areas such as that, only the social services can help, and I include the efforts of Glasgow district council. It may be said that the region provides the s social services, but a great deal of back-up is required from the district council.
604
If the services provided by the district council are bad, there is often little that the social services can do to improve matters. Nothing is simply the responsibility of the region. Nor is the region free from Government cuts; by this time next year even Strathclyde region could be on the Government hit list.
In view of the terrible poverty that exists in some areas, we need a local authority which will be assured of help and resources, not attacks and cuts, from the Government. It is all very well to say that local government spending must be reduced, but something must be done to replace the services which are being destroyed. By all means administer policies from St. Andrew's House, but if the Government do not intend to increase the social services and improve their quality they will he doing a great disservice to the people of Glasgow and elsewhere.
For many people who are unemployed the only leisure facilities available are in parks and through the sports and recreational facilities offered in public halls. Unemployment is a problem for society as a whole, but it is the duty of Government to reduce the amount of unemployment. Until that is done, many young people will go on feeling resentful and bitter, and those feelings will get worse if they are not given leisure facilities so that they can use their energies.
Conservative Members constantly talk about law and order and about giving people a short, sharp shock. Recently they were all for capital punishment. It is about time that they did something positive to help people. One way to do that is to ensure that local authorities have the means to give people the facilities they deserve.
6.17 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson: As one of the Glasgow diaspora, I listened with sympathy to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). There is no doubt that Glasgow has considerable problems, many of which arise from the dispersal of population in the last 20 years.
I do not believe that Glasgow district council over its considerable history, including its predecessor Glasgow corporation, can be exempted from criticism. But it is a democratically elected local authority and what it says about the services that the city needs should be listened to by the House and, in particular, by the Government.
When the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) said that the interests of industry ranked so highly in her estimation, I suspected she was arguing in favour of the business vote being returned. If so, sheer logic would indicate that it should be returned to the large corporations which contribute so much to the Conservative party. One cannot have one without the other, though the undue emphasis that is placed by Conservative Members on the business element is distinctly unhealthy when we think of local government being democratically controlled and elected.
Mr. Henderson: At a time when one of the great concerns of the nation is jobs—and as jobs relate to the effectiveness of the business community —that is not something that we should lightly ignore.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman distorts the point I made. I suggested that the emphasis placed on the business element by the Conservatives was unhealthy. I do not dispute that consideration should always be given to the

605
interests of commerce and industry, but that, too, is a responsibility laid on local authorities, which are elected and should have the duty to nurture industry and commerce in their areas.
It is significant that we have this debate only a few hours after the conclusion of the Cabinet discussions. Soon we shall learn the extent of the sacrifices that the Secretary of State will call upon the Scottish people to make, whether or not they consent. Those who have read about the £5 billion reduction in grant throughout the United Kingdom must be worried about its impact on local authorities and the Health Service in Scotland.
In presenting these reports the Scotish Office is obliged to show that the spending increases of local authorities, including Glasgow, are excessive and unreasonable. The Secretary of State, in his exposition of the case against the Glasgow district council, has not discharged that obligation. He has not explained clearly and satisfactorily why the elected local authority should be compelled to act in the way dictated by a statutory instrument. The way in which the reduction in grant was casually glossed over in correspondence was unsatisfactory. In his letter the Secretary of State said that the Government found it necessary to proceed with the motion without giving any explanation.
This is all part of the squeeze and cutback in local authority expenditure. The distortions in the high rate increases have been caused by a reduction in the rate support grant. Conservatives should not support that. They are supposed to speak for the ratepayers. Therefore, Conservative Members must accept responsibility for the penalty of high rates which has been visited upon ratepayers. It is significant that the share of public expenditure spent by the Scottish Office in 1980–81 was 5·65 per cent. and that, on Government figures, it will reach 5·13 per cent. in 1985–86.
I have spoken in earlier debates about the validity of the local mandate, so I shall not develop that point further. We are talking about democracy and the right of central Government to impose on local authorities decisions that are unacceptable to them. The argument advanced by Scottish local authorities is valid. One of the prime recommendations of the Wheatley commission was that reform of local government was necessary to enhance local autonomy. I warn the Scottish local authorities that the argument about local control, which I accept, will not wash in the House and elsewhere. No central Government would readily concede a reduction in their powers. They would have to be coerced.
Although local authorities wish to push their case, as many hon. Members will do this evening, they will lose. This is not the first round. During the past 10 years—stretching back into the previous Labour Administration —we have had a series of debates such as this one. On each occasion the local authorities have lost the battle. The Glasgow, Stirling, Kirkcaldy or Lothian mandates will not carry the day. The House should address itself to the powerful argument for a Scottish mandate—
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): There were 53 lost deposits.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes a jeering point, but he must accept that the Conservative party assumed power on the shirt tails of an English majority.
606
The Government have no moral right to tell Scottish local authorities how to behave. The arrogance of people such as the hon. Member for Argyle and Bute (Mr. MacKay) is driving many Scottish people to look at the quality of the Government that they have.
Mr. Foulkes: They would not put up with the Liberals either.
Mr. Wilson: If we are to achieve anything, we should urge a Scottish mandate. If all Scottish Members asked for and supported a Scottish mandate, it would not affect the votes on these motions, because all the English Members would pour in.
We must argue here and in the country that the Scots should not be governed by a party which does not have sufficient representation to justify it being in power in St. Andrew's house. We must challenge the right of the Government to govern Scotland without the consent of the Scottish people. This is not an and exercise. We know what the Chancellor is trying to do and what the Cabinet will probably have agreed to. Therefore, we realise that considerable suffering will be visited upon our countrymen. If the Opposition do not fight on the basis of a Scottish mandate, we shall have to accept responsibility for all the suffering that will result from the Government's actions during the next four years. Such failure to fight will be on the consciences of those who do not co-operate. What we do, how we fight and how effectively we represent our constituent's interests will be crucial.
6.25 pm
Mr. John Maxton: The Labour party believes that the Government have no mandate in Scotland, but that requires the establishment of a Scottish assembly and the Scottish National party does not believe in that. It believes in nothing less than total independence. That was the policy passed at its conference.
Mr. Foulkes: That is right.
Mr. Maxton: The mandate argument must be pursued in relation to Glasgow in particular. The Secretary of State for Scotland—if he would for once listen to what other people are saying — seems to think that today he is protecting the Glasgow ratepayers, but they have consistently made clear which party they support, and it is not his party.
In 1978 Labour swept Glasgow in the regional elections. In 1979 Labour swept Glasgow in the parliamentary elections; in 1980 in the district elections; in 1982 in the regional elections again; and in 1983 in the general election. The Labour party has won every election in Glasgow during the past six years. It has decisively defeated the Conservative party. Glasgow, Hillhead was the only Conservative-held seat in Glasgow. The Conservatives now have none.
The people of Glasgow want Labour policies carried out by a Labour district council. The people voted for the Labour party to maintain levels of services. Whereas the Secretary of State may say that he has the right to control the money that he gives to Glasgow district council, he has no right to say how much the district council should raise through the rates that it levies on its citizens who voted for it and for the type of policies that it said it would implement.
The only logical argument that the Secretary of State put forward was that the Glasgow district council spent

607
more per head of the population than any other district council. Many of us have recently received a useful booklet called "Rating Review". It shows that Glasgow spent more per head of the population on libraries, museums, leisure, recreation, halls, environmental health and cleansing than any other district council. It might therefore be called a spendthrift local authority.
Mr. Cook: No—Marxist.
Mr. Maxton: No, not even Marxist. The amount per head spent on those facilities by Glasgow district council is high because they are not just for the people of Glasgow. They are for the people of Bearsden and Strathkelvin, in particular, who are parasites on the city's facilities. Those people do not provide money for museums and halls. The Glasgow district council provides the museums, parks and halls.
The best example of all is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who unfortunately is not present. Right in the middle of Eastwood there is the Rouken Glen park, which is used almost exclusively by the people of Eastwood, although it is paid for and maintained by the ratepayers of Glasgow. Eastwood district council does not contribute a single penny towards the upkeep of that park, although its ratepayers benefit from it. That is true of many of Glasgow's facilities.
If the Secretary of State were logical, he would suggest dividing the total cost of Glasgow expenditure—not just the expenditure of the people of Glasgow, but the expenditure of the whole area of greater Glasgow. The major mistake—this is why Glasgow is in its present position, and why its rates tend to be high— was in 1972, when the House passed the legislation dealing with the reform of local government in Scotland and left the satellite suburbs of Glasgow outside in small separate district councils. I hope that the next labour Government will bring Eastwood, Bearsden, Strathkelvin, and Bishopbriggs into the Glasgow district council, where they should be. In that way the rates would be paid by the people who used the services. That would be the right way to proceed.
These motions are unjustified. We have heard no logical arguments from the Secretary of State to justify them. The right hon. Gentleman is illogical, and he is an intellectual lightweight, to say the least. I ask the House to reject the motions.
6.32 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The approach of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to his perorations is always fascinating. I have never yet heard him come to the end of a peroration without describing someone in terms that would be better applicable to himself. I was also fascinated by his argument that because Glasgow had no Conservative Members of Parliament the Government had therefore no right to take any decisions affecting the city. He must surely accept that in the unlikely eventuality of his party ever coming to power again, on his own basis, that Government would not be able to govern north of the Tay. It would be nonsense to try to govern Scotland on that basis.
We have had a full debate, and I do not intend to detain the House for long. I shall pick up some of the points that
608
were raised. I listened with interest to all the speeches made by Opposition Members who represent Glasgow constituencies, but we have heard hardly a word about the interests of the city's ratepayers. It is typical of their attitude in debates of this nature that they never pay any attention to the interests of ratepayers, although when the ratepayers, particularly industrial ratepayers, vote with their feet, as they often do, they are the first to complain.
Mr. Dewar: Does the Under-Secretary agree that if he and his right hon. Friend had maintained their contribution to Glasgow at a steady level, in real terms — not increasing it, just maintaining it—it would have been possible to have a rate reduction of 17p in the pound?
Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way. [Interruption.] I am intending to cover that subject, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do so. I shall answer the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) last, and when I do so I shall have something to say on the matter.
The second surprise to me in this debate, despite the fact that representatives of Glasgow district came to visit me at the Scottish Office — a meeting that has been mentioned on several occasions in the debate — and despite the fact that at that meeting they had the honesty to admit that, in view of the adjustments that had been made and the £3 million extra that had been given to them by the Government—they had £3 million available to go back to the ratepayers, and in fairness to those representatives, they said that they would prefer to give that back next year—is that there has been no mention of that by Opposition Members, as if the £3 million had somehow disappeared. In their failure to mention that, we see their total disregard for the interests of their ratepayers. In the district elections next year Glasgow ratepayers would do well to remember what has been said in this debate.
A number of matters have been raised with which I shall deal briefly. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), whom I do not see in his seat, mentioned the Burrell gallery. He spoke of the burden that it would place on Glasgow. The expenditure consequences of opening the new gallery were clearly set out in the council's representations, and the Secretary of Slate took into account the points made by the council in proceeding with the action.
I personally welcome the opening of the gallery, and I am pleased that the Government have given support towards the capital costs of the project. Nevertheless, the expenditure implications of the project cannot be viewed in isolation from the need to contain expenditure generally. The Secretary of State was able to provide capital support only by making commensurate reductions elsewhere in his programme, and I wish that Glasgow had done likewise. These are painful decisions, but they must be taken, and therefore the Secretary of State cannot exclude the running costs of the gallery from his considerations.
Mr. Millan: Is the Minister recommending that the city does not open the gallery? Incidentally, the capital provision was made under an arrangement made by me, not by his right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ancram: Yes, but this Government found the money. [Interruption.] It is for the Glasgow district

609
council to decide whether it wants to open the gallery, which, as I said, I personally would welcome. It is for that council to find a way to finance it, just as the Secretary of State did when he provided support.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) has not managed to last the course of a Scottish debate and that he, too, has left the Chamber. He said, somewhat to my surprise, that the entry of £4 million, which has been the subject of dispute in this debate, was a matter for judgment. I shall come back to the matter later. He said that the column into which such a figure goes is a matter of judgment. For an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that about the way in which one presents figures and certifies them as correct leaves much to be desired.
Finally, I come to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Govan. He said a number of things which surprised me. He spoke first of the centralist role of this Government in attacking the roots of local government. He claims that that is being done by the Government in exercising their control over the expenditure of local authorities. However, he cannot avoid the fact that he himself was prepared to use precisely the same methods to control local government expenditure.
Mr. Millan: Nonsense.
Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but today he told the House that he believed that central Government must have an interest in local government spending.
Mr. Millan: If this Government are doing only the same as I did under Labour, why on earth do we need all the additional legislation?
Mr. Ancram: We must examine what the right hon. Gentleman did. He said that he believed that central Government should have an interest in overall spending by local authorities. I understood him to say that that should be done by reducing the rate support grant percentage. He used that method himself. The right hon. Gentleman went further and said that the rates were too high because the Government had reduced the percentage of rate support grant. He then said that he did not think that Governments should try directly to influence or control rate increases.
Apparently the right hon. Gentleman's policy is to attack direct methods of reducing rates while advocating rate support grant reductions which put up rates, and implicitly support any level of rate increase, however high it is. That is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from what the hon. Gentleman said today. The right hon. Gentleman should tell the House that his party does not believe in trying to control local government expenditure at all. That is his position, and it is about time that he came clean on it.
The right hon. Gentleman discussed a number of issues connected with Glasgow. He spoke about guidelines in general. He was one of the authors of the original guidelines. I was interested to hear him say that he thought that the way in which guidelines had been drawn up was odd, because I understood that he was instrumental in implementing them. His guidelines were based upon past expenditure. As such, they rewarded high expenditure, irrespective of need. It is no wonder that he objects now
610
to the Government's scientific approach to drawing up guidelines. I am glad that COSLA has agreed to collaborate with the Scottish Office in drawing up the guidelines.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has referred to the current guidelines and their scientific basis. I draw his attention to the recent publication by Arthur Midwinter of the university of Strathclyde which comes to the opposite conclusion. It says:
"The client group approach does not provide a scientific basis. It would be pernicious to use this method given the present state of the art as a basis for current expenditure guidelines."
Given that clear statement from the only scientific body that has examined the guidelines, how do the Government justify their argument?
Mr. Ancram: I always put in perspective Dr. Midwinter's remarks because he is more of a friend of the Opposition than he is of the Government.
Mr. Cook: Cheap.
Mr. Ancram: The client group approach takes more cognisance of need than any past method on the basis of historic expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the £4 million. Perhaps he misunderstood what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. My right hon. Friend referred to the "so-called error" which he said was
"over the £4 million included by Glasgow in its certified return on the line for housing improvement grants. This line is used by all other authorities—and up to this year has been used by Glasgow itself. This year, Glasgow decided to enter in this line expenditure on the grants themselves. It was bound to cause confusion if Glasgow chose, without explanation, to change its practice in providing information. The first time that it was drawn to my attention was … at a meeting between me and representatives of COSLA. The purpose of such meetings is, of course, to discuss local authority financial matters in general, not detailed points of this kind.
"Once again the term error is quite inappropriate".
My right hon. Friend said that the true purpose of the £4 million, shown against "housing improvement grants", was explained at the meeting between the Secretary of State and representatives of Glasgow district council on 20 June.
The right hon. Member for Govan made severe allegations about my right hon. Friend. He referred to the meeting with COSLA and to the meeting with me. He distinguished between the two. It is important to put the record straight.
Mr. Millan: There is no point in carrying on the argument because Hansard will show exactly what the Secretary of State said. I specifically asked the Secretary of State whether the matter was drawn to his attention on 22 April and he said "No." That will be in Hansard tomorrow.
Mr. Ancram: It must now be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that at the meeting with COSLA on 22 April this matter was raised.
Mr. Millan: We shall read it in Hansard tomorrow.
Mr. Ancram: We are debating a report for which we seek approval and it is right that the record should be set straight before we vote.
Mr. Millan rose—
Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way again.
Mr. Millan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use a point of order to ask a question.
Mr. Millan: I shall not do that, Mr. Speaker. We shall find the truth tomorrow. I hope that if what I have said is confirmed the Secretary of State will have the good grace to apologise in the House.
Mr. Ancram: I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman finds that he is wrong he will have the decency to withdraw his remarks.
We have been told by the Opposition that the Government have failed to justify their action against Glasgow. We took this action on the basis of a number of criteria about which the Opposition know. They also know that the statistics and the criteria were changed following the meeting with myself when it was accepted that the £4 million should not be counted as relevant expenditure for the purposes of assessing excess over guidelines. Even with those adjustments, the guidelines excess in Glasgow remained at 30·5 per cent., well above the average district level of 21·8 per cent. The expenditure per head, even after that adjustment, reduced from £112·32 to £107·06, is well above the average for comparators of £67·11. Despite the consultations and the close attention that I paid to the representations made to me which I reported to my right hon. Friend, the case against Glasgow is still strong. That council's expenditure is, in any view, excessive and unreasonable. For that reason, I ask the House to support the report.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 175.

Division No. 38]

[6.48 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Freeman, Roger

Ancram, Michael

Fry, Peter

Aspinwall, Jack

Gale, Roger

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Galley, Roy

Bendall, Vivian

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bright, Graham

Goodlad, Alastair

Bruinvels, Peter

Gower, Sir Raymond

Buck, Sir Antony

Grant, Sir Anthony

Bulmer, Esmond

Greenway, Harry

Chapman, Sydney

Gregory, Conal

Chope, Christopher

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

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Coombs, Simon

Ground, Patrick

Cope, John

Grylls, Michael

Corrie, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Crouch, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hanley, Jeremy

Dorrell, Stephen

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Harvey, Robert

Dover, Denshore

Haselhurst, Alan

Dunn, Robert

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Durant, Tony

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Eggar, Tim

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Evennett, David

Hawksley, Warren

Eyre, Reginald

Hayward, Robert

Fallon, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Farr, John

Heddle, John

Favell, Anthony

Henderson, Barry

Fletcher, Alexander

Hicks, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Hirst, Michael

Forth, Eric

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Fox, Marcus

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

612

Holt, Richard

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Hordern, Peter

Price, Sir David

Howard, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Rathbone, Tim

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Renton, Tim

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hunter, Andrew

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Jackson, Robert

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Jessel, Toby

Roe, Mrs Marion

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rost, Peter

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rowe, Andrew

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Ryder, Richard

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Key, Robert

Sayeed, Jonathan

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Knowles, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Silvester, Fred

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Sims, Roger

Lee, John (Pendle)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Lester, Jim

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lightbown, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lilley, Peter

Spence, John

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Spencer, D.

Lord, Michael

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Lyell, Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McCrindle, Robert

Stanbrook, Ivor

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Stanley, John

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Stern, Michael

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

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

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

McQuarrie, Albert

Stradling Thomas, J.

Major, John

Sumberg, David

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Maples, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marland, Paul

Terlezki, Stefan

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Maude, Francis

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Thornton, Malcolm

Mellor, David

Tracey, Richard

Merchant, Piers

Trotter, Neville

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Viggers, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Waldegrave, Hon William

Moate, Roger

Walden, George

Monro, Sir Hector

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Montgomery, Fergus

Waller, Gary

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Walters, Dennis

Moynihan, Hon C.

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Murphy, Christopher

Warren, Kenneth

Neale, Gerrard

Watts, John

Nelson, Anthony

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Nicholls, Patrick

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Norris, Steven

Wheeler, John

Osborn, Sir John

Whitfield, John

Ottaway, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Parris, Matthew

Wolfson, Mark

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Wood, Timothy

Patten, John (Oxford)

Woodcock, Michael

Pawsey, James

Yeo, Tim

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Younger, Rt Hon George

Pink, R. Bonner

Pollock, Alexander

Tellers for the Ayes:

Porter, Barry

Mr. Ian Land and

Powell, William (Corby)

Mr. Michael Neubert.

Powley, John

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Ashton, Joe

613

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Eadie, Alex

Barnett, Guy

Eastham, Ken

Barron, Kevin

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

Bell, Stuart

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Ewing, Harry

Bidwell, Sydney

Fatchett, Derek

Blair, Anthony

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Fisher, Mark

Boyes, Roland

Flannery, Martin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Forrester, John

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Foster, Derek

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

Foulkes, George

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

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Bruce, Malcolm

Freud, Clement

Caborn, Richard

Garrett, W. E.

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Campbell, Ian

Godman, Dr Norman

Canavan, Dennis

Golding, John

Clarke, Thomas

Gould, Bryan

Clay, Robert

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Cohen, Harry

Hardy, Peter

Coleman, Donald

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Heffer, Eric S.

Corbett, Robin

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Cowans, Harry

Hoyle, Douglas

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Craigen, J. M.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Crowther, Stan

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Dalyell, Tam

Janner, Hon Greville

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

John, Brynmor

Davis, Terry (Bham, H'ge H'I)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Deakins, Eric

Kennedy, Charles

Dewar, Donald

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Dixon, Donald

Kirkwood, Archibald

Dobson, Frank

Lambie, David

Dormand, Jack

Lamond, James

Dubs, Alfred

Leadbitter, Ted

614

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Randall, Stuart

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Redmond, M.

Litherland, Robert

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Loyden, Edward

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

McCartney, Hugh

Robertson, George

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Rogers, Allan

McGuire, Michael

Rooker, J. W.

McKelvey, William

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Rowlands, Ted

Maclennan, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

McTaggart, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

McWilliam, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Madden, Max

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Marek, Dr John

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

Martin, Michael

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Skinner, Dennis

Maxton, John

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

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Meadowcroft, Michael

Soley, Clive

Michie, William

Stott, Roger

Mikardo, Ian

Strang, Gavin

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Straw, Jack

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Tinn, James

Nellist, David

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

O'Brien, William

Wareing, Robert

O'Neill, Martin

Welsh, Michael

Park, George

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Parry, Robert

Wilson, Gordon

Patchett, Terry

Winnick, David

Pavitt, Laurie

Woodall, Alec

Pendry, Tom

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Pike, Peter

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Tellers for the Noes:

Prescott, John

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Radice, Giles

Mr. Norman Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Reduction (Glasgow District) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Rates (Lothian Region)
7 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the Rate Reduction (Lothian Region) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
The arguments that were advanced in the previous debate are relevant to this issue and I shall not weary the House by repeating any of them.
I shall spell out as briefly as I can the case behind the report on the Lothian regional council. The House will know that the council has been the subject of selective action for the financial years 1981-82 and 1982–83. In those two years, as well as this year, Lothian's excess over guidelines was and is the highest of any regional council, and its planned expenditure per head is above that of any comparable authority and above the regional average.
My action in 1981–82 and 1982–83 reduced Lothian's expenditure significantly. Last year that was accompanied by a welcome rate reduction of 16p in the pound. When agreeing not to proceed with action to reduce Lothian's rate support grant in 1982–83, in the light of its voluntary rate reduction, I said that I hoped that the council would continue to consider urgently the scope for further reductions in its expenditure in future years. Unfortunately the council has failed to live up to that hope.
Far from continuing to reduce its expenditure this year, the Lothian regional council has planned for a slight increase. Once again its expenditure, measured against the guidelines, showed the highest increase of any region. Its planned expenditure per head was significantly higher than that of comparable authorities and above the regional average. Had Lothian chosen to co-operate and continue the downward trend in its expenditure, which was brought about by previous selective action, further selective action would have been unnecessary.
Two issues have been raised in particular about Lothian's budget for 1983–84 and used to suggest that the selective action is not justified. First, it has been claimed that Lothian reduced its rates this year by 8p and that its rates are now closely in line with those of other regions. There is no doubt that Lothian has reduced its rate from 100p in 1982–83 to 92p in 1983–84. That is clearly welcome to ratepayers, but that has been achieved only by the use of a credit balance of almost £10 million. It is clear from the fact that the authority does not plan a reduction in its expenditure that the rate reduction, not being linked to real expenditure savings, is not a lasting one.
Secondly, it has been alleged that Lothian continues to have the highest guidelines excess of the regions because its guidelines are constantly being changed. Until 1981–82, existing expenditure patterns played a large part in determining an authority's guidelines. An authority with high expenditure would have high guidelines. In 1982–83 the client group method of assessing relative expenditure need was used for the first time to calculate guidelines. That was based on a systematic examination of relative expenditure need related to work carried out for the distribution committee.
There was some damping effect in both 1982–83 and 1983–84 on the client group figures to take account of previous expenditure, and it is not surprising that authorities with a history of high spending should find themselves with lower guidelines as a result of the change.
616
The objective of the guidelines is not to reflect actual spending but to try to establish relative expenditure need on a basis that treats all authorities, whether high or low spenders, in the same way. It would not be fair if high-spending authorities continued to be set high guidelines.
It is clear that Lothian has failed to continue the necessary process of reducing its expenditure which was started in 1981–82. I do not think that it is unreasonable to bring down an authority's expenditure, as I propose, to the average per head of regional councils as a whole, especially when that average includes authorities with special geographical and social needs, such as the Strathclyde and Highlands regions.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, because the Lothian regional council has a history of high spending, it has made some important capital investments, such as new sewerage works, which involve continuing revenue expenditure? His policy will involve drastic cuts in expenditure on schools, for example, if revenue spending on the sewerage works is to be maintained. Common sense dictates that the Government should recognise that Lothian has had a higher level of capital investment than other authorities, and that should be taken into account when it comes to cutting expenditure.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman makes a genuine point which flows from decisions taken in previous years. It is one of the factors that I have carefully taken into account in the representations made to me by the Lothian regional council and in the consideration that has been given to the exercise of the discretion. It is one of the reasons why we have modified what was originally proposed for the council. I appreciate that all these factors have to be taken into account.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State said that it could not be claimed to be unreasonable to bring Lothian's expenditure down to the average of other regional authorities. With respect, that is not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has to prove. He has to prove that Lothian's expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. Is he asking the House to accept that any increase in expenditure over and above the average of other regions is excessive and unreasonable?
Mr. Younger: No, I am not. That has never been the purpose of any of the reports.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that it was.
Mr. Younger: No, that is not so. The hon. Gentleman will recall that on every occasion when this issue has been debated I have made it clear that it is not a matter of taking any one criterion and saying, "Because the authority is above this criterion, action is to be taken against it on account of its excessive and unreasonable expenditure." It would not be possible or correct to do that. I have to demonstrate that the expenditure proposed by a particular authority is excessive and unreasonable, and to do that it is necessary to demonstrate that it is considerably out of line with several criteria. I have on many occasions listed the criteria and said how many of them we take into account. The case that I am making against Lothian rests on the general principles that I have been applying generally. There is no difference between this case and any others.

617
Even after Lothian made the reduction that was required to bring down its expenditure by the equivalent of 6p, its expenditure per head was still above that of all other comparable authorities, including the Central region, Fife, Grampian and Tayside, all of which run satisfactory and efficient services. We know from the budget proposals of the Conservative group that the reduction proposed for Lothian is achievable and that there need be no compulsory redundancies. The wise move by the council of agreeing that none of the recruitment necessitated by its budget should take place until the matter is resolved should ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies.
The Lothian case is clear. Its planned expenditure is excessive and unreasonable on all measures. Only action such as I propose will bring its expenditure — and consequently its rates—to a level that is not excessively above that of other authorities.
7.8 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: Anyone who has taken an interest in the debate on local government over the past three years in the House and in Scotland generally will be aware that every time the Conservative party gets into a tight corner its first and immediate instinct is to attack the Lothian region. It holds a special and prominent place in Tory demonology.
I do not think that the House should conduct its business in that way. If the Lothian region is on trial, and if the charge is excessive and unreasonable expenditure, at least we owe the authority the courtesy of considering the evidence and the arguments. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to start his case with the significant comment that he has had to move against the Lothian regional council in the past. The Opposition say that that action should not have been taken, but even if we were to accept the premise that in the past it was necessary to do so and that the authority has previous convictions, that does not mean that it is guilty in this case and on this occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) talked about the general background and I shall not deal with it again. I shall direct myself to the evidence, which has largely been provided by the Secretary of State. I want to try to keep things simple because I think that that will be especially helpful to the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply.
The first criterion that has been used by Conservatives is reference to the guidelines and the extent to which he planned expenditure of the Lothian region is in excess of the guidelines. We have tried to argue consistently and with justification that the guidelines are discredited. It was said in the previous debate that councils up and down the land, however they are politically controlled and however true blue they are, have failed to live within the guidelines because they are unrealistic. Only three out of 65 have met the impractical targets set for them.
At the end of the day the whole black farce was exposed by the interesting exercise that the Government conducted with the Shetland Islands council. I make it clear, so that there is no ambiguity, that I am delighted that that council has been let off the hook and has escaped from the trap, but it is obvious that there is something wrong with the guidelines because Shetland was almost 47 per cent. over them. The Secretary of State, having talked to the council,
618
discovered, apparently to his amazement, that there were certain consequences of oil development that he had not thought of when he set the guidelines. He now says that the expenditure is not excessive and unreasonable but is at a level to which he is prepared to give his blessing.
Therefore, the Secretary of State will penalise Lothian, Stirling, Kirkcaldy and Glasgow for being in excess of the guidelines, yet he is saying that the guidelines for Shetland can be abused by 47 per cent., which is all right, and not excessive or unreasonable. Anyone with half an eye can make the deduction that the guidelines should have taken account of the situation in the Shetlands when they were formulated. Whatever may be the casualty of this exercise — it is largely the credibility of the right hon. Gentleman—the principal one is the guidelines system itself. If one starts to erect an oppressive edifice on the basis of the guidelines, one is building upon unsure and unsatisfactory foundations.
Let us consider what has happened to Lothian's guidelines since 1978–79. They have increased by the smallest percentage of any of the regional authorities in Scotland—94·5 per cent. — while the average for the regions as a whole is 100·86 per cent. The guidelines of the comparable group of authorities, picked by the Secretary of State himself, increased in that period by 111 per cent. Therefore, a large percentage of the gap that has apparently appeared between the expenditure of Lothian region and the allegedly objective guidelines is accounted for by the fact that Lothian has been extremely badly treated by the mysterious formula through which the figures emerge. The region has made cuts and scrambled for safety to try to avoid the wrath of the Secretary of State, but it can never reach the target because every time it makes concessions, the guidelines retreat before it again and it is left stranded.
I shall consider some of the other criteria, for example appendix A, which deals with expenditure. The expenditure in Lothian in 1979–80 was £334 million. In 1981–82 it went up to £348 million, and in 1983–84 it fell to £345 million. Therefore, over four years, in a budget that literally runs to hundreds of millions of pounds, the increase in real terms was £11 million. Within the Lothian region there could be a perfectly legitimate debate on whether expenditure should have increased by £11 million or decreased by £11 million. It could argue about that, considering what it would say to its electorate and how they would react when they cast their votes in the regional election.
To maintain that that marginal variation allows the Secretary of State to ride roughshod over the whole fabric of local democracy in that part of Scotland is nonsense. Even that rise of £11 million is highly suspect. If one looks at the expenditure figure that the Secretary of State gives in his appendix, one sees that he changes the basis of calculation. The first few years are calculated on November 1982 figures. For 1982–83 and 1983–84 we go into cash figures. If one recalculated those cash figures back to November 1982 prices, I suspect that one would find that the alleged rise of £11 million, which is a small figure against the size of the budget, practically or perhaps totally disappears. Therefore, there is no case on the global figures of expenditure for saying that the Secretary of State is justified.
The right hon. Gentleman might say that it is not a matter of how much is spent but of the excess over the guidelines. Lothian region is 13 per cent. over the

619
guidelines, it is said. In parenthesis, it is not 13 per cent. over the guidelines at all. The right hon. Gentleman has not included in the guidelines the £120 million of unallocated expenditure that was included in 1983–84, which the Secretary of State knew and admitted would be spent by the local authorities. If we take that and a number of other minor adjustments into account, the figure is just over 7.5 per cent. in excess of the guidelines, but it is still considerably more in excess of the guidelines than other regional authorities. In 1978–79 Lothian region was only 4·5 per cent. over the guidelines. How can that be so? How is that possible when its expenditure hardly rose at all? The answer is that the guidelines themselves have been fiddled and fixed and amount almost to a fraud. The Lothian region has no real case to answer or that first criterion.
I do not want to go through endless figures in great detail. However, I shall look at expenditure per head. In 1979–80 it was £444. In 1983–84 it had dropped to £439. Is it excessive and unreasonable when there is a fall in expenditure per head? Is that a reasonable definition of "excessive" or "unreasonable"? The Secretary of State said that all other regional councils had a better record, and although he tried to retreat when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he said explicitly that he thought that it was not wrong for him to try to force a reduction to the regional average.
Had the right hon. Gentleman looked at expenditure per head in Strathclyde, he would have seen that it is much higher than in Lothian, and perhaps rightly so, because of all the problems there. However, there are also problems in Lothian. The numbers game that the Secretary of State has been playing on a most shaky basis destroys all credibility and confidence in the system. The increase in expenditure per head for 1978–79 to 1983–84 for all regional councils in Scotland was 5·2 per cent. For Lothian it was 5·6 per cent. Who could call that excessive and unreasonable? Is it such an offence to national economic policy? Are people in the Treasury saying that, because over four years Lothian put up expenditure by 0·4 per cent. per head of the population above the regional average, we must change the entire course of this country's economic policy? That is nonsense.
In 1982–83 to 1983–84, the figure went up in all regions by 2·7 per cent., but in Lothian it went up by only 0–2 per cent. If there is any charge—it is a feeble and weak charge—against Lothian region, it is a charge rooted in the past. If one looks at the last two figures one sees that is performing "better" than other authorities. I put "better" in inverted commas because some people might think that it was arguable that the performance was better. But in terms of the Secretary of State's demands it is performing much better than local authorities in its regional category.
We could go through category after category. The Secretary of State is constantly talking about the rates. There was some rather depressing support for him from new Members of Parliament during the debate. I make it clear that the Secretary of State is the author of domestic, commercial and industrial ratepayers' misfortunes. He has not been faced with escalating expenditure by local authorities in Scotland. By and large they have been level pegging over the years, but the rates have been forced up by the catastrophic and, by any terms, extremely significant reductions in his contribution.
If, during the past four or five years the Secretary of State had simply maintained his contribution to the Glasgow budget in real terms it would have been the
620
equivalent of a rate poundage of 17p. For him then to say that he is the man who is going to the barricades to help the ratepayer is the height of hypocrisy. I do him the credit of thinking that he knows it.
I was intrigued when, in his brief and cursory speech, the Secretary of State said that it is claimed that, in the past three years, Lothian has reduced its rate poundage. I do not know what the English language means but it appears that the Secretary of State is suggesting in a rather unpleasant way that such a reduction has not in fact occurred. It has. In the past three years the Lothian rate has come down from 112p to 100p to 92p. If that is the mark of an excessive spending, irresponsible and spendthrift authority I am amazed.
We are also told that Lothian's rates are above the average. They are. Lothian's 92p is above the average for regional councils in Scotland— 1p above the average. Yet we have all this machinery creaking into action. Moreover, the relationship between Government and local government will be soured and scarred because local government has been told that 1p above the regional average for rate poundage amounts to an offence to the good government of Scotland. That is a joke and one that is in extraordinarily bad taste.
The politics of the case make a curious and disturbing story. When the budget discussions in Lothian opened, several competing bids were advanced. One was from the Labour group. If its proposals had been accepted the rate poundage would have been increased to 102p. The Tories suggested a budget that would have produced a rate poundage of 86·5p. In the delicate circumstances in Lothian it was clear that there would be much hard bargaining. I understand that the final outcome was not reached arbitrarily or by a global compromise but that the council went through its budget in great detail and examined almost every item.
The budget which produced a rate poundage of 92p was arrived at after 146 budget items had been discussed. In 108 of those 146 items—well over two thirds —the Tories supported the winning line. They approved, promoted or voted for the final decision. Therefore, they had a substantial say and, in the majority of items, Conservative policy ruled. I do not suppose that the Secretary of State maintains that they are incapable of simple arithmetic and did not know what they were doing. Of course they knew what they were doing and voted on the merits of the case as did all of the other parties in the council. The result was a rate poundage of 92p, which the Secretary of State is now trying to repudiate.
The Secretary of State probably read a leader in The Scotsman on that issue on 23 February. That newspaper said that the budget was
"arrived at in the most democratic fashion possible".
The budget was supported by four of the five political parties represented on the Lothian regional council and to attack it, according to The Scotsman, would be "naked aggression". We now have the unpalatable and extraordinary spectacle of the Tory leader of Lothian council coming out of that meeting and, having failed to get his way, crying "foul" and running screaming for help to his political seniors at St. Andrew's House. The decision was democratic and was reached only after detailed consideration. It is a negation of democracy for the Secretary of State now to turn round and say that he will reinstate what, by a strange but not surprising

621
coincidence, is more or less the Tory budget as originally proposed although it had been repudiated as I have described.
We are engaged not simply in an argument about this year's budget in Lothian. On the figures that the Secretary of State has provided, the best of the argument is overwhelmingly on the council's side—not the Labour group but the majority of that council which is a cross-party amalgamation of interests. We know that expenditure per head in Lothian has decreased in the past couple of years and we know that expenditure in real terms has been more or less static. Moreover, we know that, since 1981, Lothian's spending in real terms has been £53 million a year less on services than it was. We also know that rates have been reduced as I have described. In those circumstances, to take the enormously serious step of arrogating the rights of democratically elected councillors, the Secretary of State is striking at the heart of the democratic system as we know it. That is why we are protesting. We are not protesting because this is an argument about this year's figures, the nuts and bolts and balance sheet of the budget. We are protesting because what the Secretary of State is doing is wrong in principle. It would be just as wrong for these powers to be used in this way by a Labour Secretary of State. They are fundamentally flawed and offensive.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position. I hope that if false pride will not let him do that he will not take this route in future. The total sum of money that is being raised by this squalid operation across the four authorities is £18·8 million. We are therefore discussing a small sum of money as compared with the total of the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure and national budgets. However, the price that we are paying is enormous. I understand that the repayment to ratepayers of Lothian will be about 19p a week. It is a handful of coppers and not even a handful of silver. For that, we are disrupting the relationship that has been built up over the years. That relationship must depend to some extent on trust between the Government and local government. By insisting on these measures, the right hon. Gentleman is giving a ring of truth to charges of dictatorship. He is asking us to pay far too high a price. His decision, if he is thrawn and insists upon it, will be greatly regretted.
7.27 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) speaks persuasively, but when he uses such words as "dictatorship" he grossly exaggerates his case and does an injustice to it. The House has every right to act as the arbiter on grievances of citizens and one of the grievances of citizens is excessively high rates.
This is not the only report of its type that has been debated here. In 1981–82 the Secretary of State was forced to act against Lothian council which was following a policy of sustained expenditure growth. Expenditure was then estimated to be 29 per cent. in excess of needs and rates followed a steep upward spiral. At that time, the Secretary of State proposed, first, a reduction of £53 million. He reduced that to £47 million after receiving representations. That was approved by the House in 1981. After that, the council made economies but some £30 million which could have been returned to the ratepayers
622
was not returned as the council insisted on its being returned to the Treasury instead. That decision was one of the fundamental reasons for the marked shift at the local elections when the administration there was changed.
Mr. George FoulkesWhat was the reason in Edinburgh, West?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The reason in Edinburgh, West is that I am here today and not a Labour Member. The hon. Gentleman's party has done remarkably badly in Edinburgh recently. He should not draw attention to that fact.
That refusal to return the £30 million was seen as a harshly vindictive attitude towards Lothian ratepayers. The Conservative administration then made it clear that there would be no compulsory redundancies when it cut the rate poundage. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, the Conservative budget, which proposed a rate of 86·5p in the pound, was defeated. The Labour group proposed a budget that would have required 102p in the pound, and the alliance group proposed a budget for 93p in the pound. At first my right hon. Friend asked for a reduction of 8p in the pound. Many people and groups, including me, made representations to him. I am glad that he listened to them and reduced his request to 6p in the pound. The reason for taking action against Lothian regional council is that its budget is 13 per cent. above the guidelines, the highest of any region, and is well above the regional average of 7·7 per cent. More significantly, the excess has grown, compared with an excess figure for 1982–83 of 11·7 per cent., and Lothian has been consistently above its guidelines since 1980–81.
I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Member for Garscadden correctly on this matter, but Lothian has a significantly higher per capita expenditure than any other regional council in Scotland. The growth in expenditure during the past five years, at constant prices, has been more than in other regions.
Mr. Robin Cook: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has made that proposition, because he was with me last Friday when we met senior officials and councillors of Lothian region. They explained to him patiently the reason for many of the figures that he has quoted and pointed out to him then that what he has just said is not true. Lothian is not the highest spender per capita. The biggest spending region in Scotland is Strathclyde, although I do not criticise it for that. If this motion is passed, Highland region will spend more per capita than does Lothian region. There is no justification for singling out Lothian for special treatment.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is not my information, but I should be glad if my hon. Friend the Minister would confirm in reply that the expenditure per head for this year is £439·14, the average for all regional councils is £424·03, and that the average for closely comparable authorities is £403·24.
Mr. Dewar: Section 3 of the June 1983 edition of "Rating Review", which the hon. Gentleman will agree is an authoritative publication, shows that there is a substantial differential in regional services and that Strathclyde spends more per capita than Lothian. Will he also address himself to the fact that central Government grant, as a percentage of regional council expenditure, has

623
decreased from 57 per cent. in 1978–79 to 40 per cent. in 1982–83. Should he not address himself to that fact when making representations to his right hon. Friend?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is more significant that Lothian is well above the regional average, and I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister confirming the figures for per capita expenditure. I shall not pursue the matter until he confirms the facts, but I can tell the House that my information is different.
Mr. Foulkes: Where did the hon. Gentleman get it from?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend will confirm the facts later this evening.
One fact that has not been mentioned during the debate is that the rateable value of houses in Edinburgh is often much higher than that of their counterparts in the rest of Scotland. A Wimpey villa in Dalgety bay will have a net rateable value of £300 a year, but for an identical villa in my constituency one must pay £600, which is twice as much. The rates escalation in Lothian region often bears more heavily on Edinburgh ratepayers, because in many cases the rateable value of houses in Edinburgh is much higher than it is in the rest of the region. The average domestic rates bill in Lothian of £336·43 compares with the Scottish average of £311·75, and a reduction to 86p in the pound would take Lothian well into the pack of regional councils.
My right hon. Friend is justified in taking action to protect the ratepayer. Apart from anything else, his action will help job creation. I received a letter yesterday from the chief executive of Edinburgh chamber of commerce and manufactures, who said:
"Last year's rate reduction gave a significant boost to confidence following the disastrous years of dramatic increases … By the spring of this year our invest gations indicated that we could identify 1,896 jobs which we believe to have been saved or created by the reduction … Many small or medium-sized businesses have hung on throughout the last years in a desperate battle for survival and the rate s bill, as the largest payment which many firms make, is identified as the final straw and unfortunately staff have to be released to pay this levy."
Later in that letter the chief executive explains that the chamber of commerce is co-operating in the youth training scheme as a managing agency for 250 places. If businesses are squeezed by excessively high rates, it is difficult for them to offer places to assist the necessary growth in jobs.
Jobs in the wealth-creating sector of the economy should not be destroyed by excessive rates. An example of such a company was mentioned in The Scotsman a few days ago. The managing director of Inveresk Research International Limited said that his organisation had the disadvantage of being the most highly rated research laboratory per unit of floor space in the United Kingdom. He went on to say—this point is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst)—that he had to pay £17,000 more net rates than did a similar laboratory in Yorkshire. I have no difficulty in coming to the view that such heavy rating has an adverse effect on job recruitment.
Mr. Strang: I apologise for making this point, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) had wished to make it. Inveresk research International Limited was in east Edinburgh before it moved to east Lothian. The reason for the disparity has nothing to do with Lothian's rates but is to do with the different legislation in Scotland as opposed to England.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would take up that point when suitable local government legislation comes forward. I am certain that if Lothian's regional rates are reduced it will substantially help that company and many businesses like it, and have a favourable effect on jobs. The evidence submitted by the chamber of commerce proves that beyond doubt. The Conservative party is safeguarding jobs, which is another reason why my right hon. Friend must act.
The background to the present position is that between 1978 and 1982 there was a massive explosion in expenditure on social work and, to a lesser extent, on education. In 1982, expenditure on social work in Lothian region was 25 per cent. more per capita than it was in Strathclyde. Expenditure per head is £68·16, which is more than £10 higher than the next highest spending region, Strathclyde, and considerably higher than the Scottish average of £55·18. This year there are about 4,000 fewer school children, so the council's desire to have 100 more teachers makes no sense. With a large contraction in school rolls this is not the time to hire extra teachers. The pupil-teacher ratio in Lothian secondary schools is the best in mainland Scotland.
Mr. Foulkes: Conservative Members send their children to Winchester and other private English schools.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The region must work out the detailed economies, but I hope—
Mr. Foulkes: That is not where I send my children.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We all know that the hon. Gentleman went to a private school, but he need not draw attention to the fact.
Detailed economies are the responsibility of Lothian regional council, but I hope that teachers on short-term contracts will have their contracts renewed. I understand that they have already been renewed until December. I also very much hope that, wherever possible, economies will not bite into remedial education. I have received representations from specialist teachers in my constituency. I hope that that will be taken into account.
Finally, the Secretary of State and Lothian regional council are walking a tightrope in terms of the time scale. The longer the economies are delayed, the more difficult it will be to achieve them. As each day goes by, it becomes harder to implement the economies. The more restrictive the time scale, the more difficult they will become. It is time that the uncertainty was resolved in the interests of all concerned.
7.41 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I think that I can assist the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). The figures that he quoted were exactly the same as ours, so there is no difference of information between us. If he looks more closely, however, he will see that he was quoting the average figures for the regions and comparative regions. It is in the nature of averages—this is the way in which they are calculated—that some figures one above the average and others are below. Thus, one cannot conclude that Lothian region's per capita expenditure is greater or less than any other by looking at the average.
Looking at all the figures, one sees that Strathclyde has the highest. I make no criticism of Strathclyde. No doubt that figure is justified by the demand in its area. Next

625
comes the Highlands region. Again, I make no criticism as that region has additional problems in meeting expenditure and providing services over a vast tract of land. Only then does one come to Lothian, and again there are special factors which justify the Lothian figure. I shall go into the detailed case later, but I put firmly and clearly on record at the outset that Lothian does not have the highest expenditure per head of population—it has only the third highest.
There is a sense of déja vu about this debate. This is the third year running in which the Secretary of State has sought to cut our budget by order. The most charitable explanation for his behaviour is that it must be force of habit. One is tempted to conclude that this has become an annual ritual in which the Secretary of State seeks to exorcise the evil spirits of high spending through the token sacrifice of Lothian region and Stirling district. No doubt the day will come when we shall dispense with prayers on the day of this annual summer debate and begin instead by burning straw effigies of councillors Connarty and Milligan. There is certainly no rational justification for what we are now being invited to do.
Logically, with every passing year the Secretary of State's case must become weaker. In 1981, he sucured the permission of the House to lop £30 million from Lothian region's budget on the grounds that that sum was excessive and unreasonable. The following year he returned with a similar case and, through negotiation with the council, lopped off a further £30·7 million as being excessive and unreasonable. Even allowing for the small reinstatement in the current budget, in those two years well over £50 million was removed from the budget as being excessive and unreasonable. The Secretary of State now says that there is still £15 million which is excessive and unreasonable. If that is so, the definition of what is excessive and unreasonable must have been shifted progressively the more the local authority cut into its expenditure.
The most frustrating aspect for Lothian Members rebutting the report is that we have never been offered a sensible, objective definition of what "excessive and reasonable" means. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), added a new note of confusion into our attempts to understand what the Government regard as excessive and unreasonable when he said that he welcomed the expenditure on the Burrell gallery in Glasgow, but that he could not lay that expenditure aside when calculating what was excessive and unreasonable. If he welcomes it, how can he include it in his calculation of what he regards as an excessive and unreasonable total?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) argued with such fluency and skill, when one considers all the objective figures for the relevant local authorities, there is no case for saying that Lothian's budget is excessive or unreasonable. We have already shown that there is no case in terms of the accounts or of expenditure. There is also no case in terms of the trend in expenditure. Lothian is out of line with other regions in Scotland in the trend of expenditure, but it is out of line in a way that undermines rather than strengthens the Secretary of State's case. Since 1981, Lothian region's expenditure has fallen by 5·5 per cent., whereas the average for all the regions has increased by 0·5 per cent.
626
The only definition of "excessive and unreasonable" on which the Secretary of State can possibly be relying is that of excess expenditure over the guidelines.
There are two problems in relying on the guidelines for Lothian. First, there is the general problem that the guidelines have been subject to shrinkage in the past two years because the Secretary of State has failed to index them fully by reference to inflation. The authorities' estimates of the rate of inflation have proved more prudent and realistic than those of the Secretary of State on both occasions. The result is a grotesque situation. If the guidelines were genuinely indicative, one would expect to find as many authorities above them as below them. In fact, only three local authorities in the whole of Scotland managed to get below the guidelines, while 62 are above them.
Secondly, one cannot rely on the guidelines because they are constantly being fiddled. In the past five years, there have been four changes in the method of calculation. The most recent change—to the client group method—is the least satisfactory of all. I shall not weary the House with the full quotation from Dr. Arthur Midwinter that I gave when I intervened in the Minister's speech. I merely repeat that Dr. Midwinter concludes that the client group
"does not provide a scientific basis,"
that it is in a
"primitive state of development"
and that it is
"pernicious to use this method"
as a means of calculating the guidelines.
When I put that to the Under-Secretary of State—perhaps the Secretary of State will spare his junior for a moment—he responded with a cheap jibe about Dr. Midwinter being politically biased. I do not know Dr. Midwinter's political affiliations. I have never actually met him, although I have corresponded with him, but he is a distinguished university academic and the leading authority on public expenditure in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State, who is in a privileged position, knows that if he repeated his allegation outside the cloak of parliamentary privilege it would be actionable. We shall see whether he has the courage to do so.
If the Under-Secretary of State argues that the report should be disregarded on the ground that Dr. Midwinter is a friend of the Opposition, I should inform him that the report from which I quoted was prepared for the Highlands regional council. I am not aware that that council is run by the Labour party, Militant Tendency or even the SDP. In that report Dr. Midwinter gives his conclusions about the pathetic inadequacy of the client group method of calculating the guidelines, which is the only basis on which Lothian's expenditure shows up as execessive compared with that of other authorities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden pointed out, the guidelines for Lothian have declined, but those for the comparative regions have increased. That inevitably contrasts unfavourably with Lothian. If it is the case—there may be grounds for it—that guidelines should be shifted differently for the comparative regions than for Lothian, that blows apart the idea that these regions are comparable. The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. The comparative regions should have the same guidelines as Lothian, or they are not comparable with Lothian. If they are not comparable, the right hon. Gentleman cannot use them to justify the criticism of Lothian's expenditure.

627
The Secretary of State's case is so statistically and transparently bare and so much the result of fixing those atatistics and he is so intellectually mediocre in his reasoning, that it is tempting to spend one's time concentrating on demolishing his statistics. However, that would be wrong, for it would obscure the real consequences of what we are debatig tonight.
The first of these consequences is the dire effect on services already cut. This is the third year in which the Lothian region faces cuts, and we have already had experience of what those cuts mean. Livingston has the highest proportion of toddlers of any constituency in Scotland and I have more pre-school children than anybody else in the Chamber. [Laughter.] I am happy to withdraw that. My constituents have more pre-school children than any other set of constituents represented here.
The number of nursery school places in Lothian region has fallen in the past two years as a result of the cuts. Hundreds of toddlers in my constituency are now on waiting lists for nursery places, yet they will not reach the top of those lists before they are old enough to go to primary school. When they get to primary school, perhaps because of the level of poor pre-school education, they will in many cases need remedial education.
I could describe the reference to remedial teaching made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West as hypocritical, but I shall not do so. Instead, I shall call it his maivety in expressing his pious hope that remedial teaching will not be affected. Remedial teaching has already been affected in Lothian. In west Lothian the school roll has fallen by 2 per cent., and remedial teaching has fallen by 17 per cent. Those kids who need the help most are being made to suffer most under the Conservatives.
What is more, when those children leave school, half of them will be unemployed. There is 50 per cent. unemployment among school leavers. They will find the youth and leisure centres, formerly available to them, being closed. In the past month, the largest youth centre in my constituency has closed because of cuts in the community education budget. I cannot understand how Conservative Members can prate about law and order and a civilised society when their Government are making cuts that mean that kids are idle all day, without recreation facilities on which to spend their time, and then be surprised that those kids turn to petty crime.
In the light of what has already happened in Lothian region, we must ask what will happen if we approve this report? We know from the figures calculated by heads of departments that in education the cuts will mean the loss of 1,000 teaching posts, although that does not necessarily mean 1,000 compulsory redundancies. That will mean a sharp reduction in services. It will mean the loss of 272 home-help posts in a region with one of the highest proportions of elderly persons in Scotland. We already know what the Conservative administration in the Lothian region wants to do because it obligingly told The Scotsman. It will utilise fares to recoup some of this loss. Specifically, it will withdraw the bus concession to pensioners. In other words, the poor will pay more for the services upon which they depend.
Mention of the Conservatives brings me to the other real consequence of the report. It will mean a further major blow to local democracy. There is a fresh factor in Lothian's case tonight. In the past two years the budgets
628
that were put forward and then amended by order by the Secretary of State were proposed by the ruling Labour group in Lothian region, because we have to admit that we failed to carry the minor parties with us. Lothian region's budget has now been so cut that all the minor parties agree with the Labour group on the importance of resisting this motion. The budget that the Secretary of State is seeking to amend by order is approved by four of the five parties in Lothian region—the Labour group, the SNP, the SDP and the Liberals. Between them, those parties not only have a majority on Lothian regional council, but a two thirds majority of the votes cast as recently as May last year. What is most repugnant is that the Secretary of State is using his majority in this Chamber to impose on Lothian region a budget that the Conservative party in Lothian could not get a majority for in its own council.
The effect of these cuts on services will be damaging enough, but we shall also lose something more precious — the ability of local authorities to be creative and innovative in the policies and services that they provide to local people. We shall damage their capacity to respond to the local demand for improvements in those services and take away the right of local communities to settle for themselves the policies to be followed by their local authorities. It is for that reason that we shall vote against the motion. If Conservative Members' rhetoric about freedom and democracy with which they deluge us during elections means anything, they should also vote with us in the Lobby tonight.
7.55 pm
Mr. Gerald Malone: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) ended his speech by talking about democracy. I am not a member of the Scottish family affected by this report as I come from a constituency that is outwith the three areas directly affected, and therefore I should like to deal with that point. What has been said raises matters of principle, and the hon. Member for Livingston referred to them as well.
It is wrong to suggest that local authorities have any democracy other than that that flows from this House. They are creatures of statute and we must not forget that. They exercise functions that are delegated to them by the House. It is constitutionally correct to say that they must exercise these functions within the guidelines laid down by the House, both statutory and, in terms of the powers that the House has given itself, financial as well.
Tonight, we are dealing with the relationship between the House and local authorities, and a misconception that is held about their role by Labour Members. That relationship has been recognised by most of those on the Labour Benches. It was recognised in 1966, albeit in a slightly blunter form, when Labour Members adopted the same type of legislation in principle as we are trying to adopt tonight. Nothing has changed. Local authorities are still the creature of the legislature and that cannot be changed. We are entitled — I wish to get this point clearly on record—to supervise them in what they do in the general levels of their expenditure.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the hon. Member accept that, whereas the constitutional facts are as he states, the electoral process is also crucial to the democratic health of the country, and members of the public have the chance to cast their votes, just as they cast their votes for Members of the House? The people of

629
Lothian cast their votes overwhelmingly against the policies that the Government are now trying to enforce, through the House, on Lothian regional council.
Mr. Malone: I cannot accept that, because it is founded on a basic misconception. People are elected to regional and district councils in Scotland to carry out the functions given to them by statute created in 1973. It is as simple as that and that point cannot be ignored.
We must take the shades from our eyes and realise that this is not just a one-off issue. It is the end of a long struggle by not only this Government since 1979 to try to control unreasonable expenditure but by the Labour Government to impose strictures on local government when it was thought that spending was getting out of hand. It is clear that Lothian spending has got out of hand. A rise of 154 per cent. in rates since 1978–79 is too much in the Lothian region or any other region. On that scale it is right that the House should intervene to protect the ratepayers.
I was interested to hear various points that were made about electors and the local authority dictating the overall level of expenditure. The point is that many electors do not pay those rates. When it comes to defending those who pay them and when electors start to suggest policies that get out of hand, it is up to the House to exercise its correct and clear function to protect them. That is what the Government are doing tonight.
Mr. Dewar: I accept that a local authority must obey the laws passed by the House and operate within them. No one would argue with that. But that is no excuse for the House passing bad laws and treating local democracy insensitively, which is what these measures do. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the question which has not yet been answered. In view of the high rates about which he is complaining, why does he approve of a Government policy which has seen central Government grant as a percentage of Lothian council's expenditure fall since 1978 from 57 per cent. to 45 per cent.? Assuming that services have remained almost static, that means that the unfortunate ratepayer has had to find about another £50 million in rates as a result of the Secretary of State's actions.
Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman is always at his most persuasive when he puts forward half an argument. My reply is simply that Governments have tried over the past few years to encourage local authorities to reduce their spending. In fact, local authorities pass the buck to the ratepayers and that is what the Government are now trying to stop. It comes ill from the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front Bench to argue as they do. I suspect that they are suffering from a case of envy, because the blunt instrument that they created in their legislation of 1966 did not work. The instrument that we are legislating tonight is more refined and will tackle the problem. At the end of the day the Labour Government found that their legislation did not achieve what they wanted. They found that rates could go up regardless and that they had to penalise authorities which exceeded expenditure as well as those that did not. This legislation is effectively designed to put the blame back where it belongs — on those councils that are overspending. That is why we do not want to continue implementing the type of legislation that was passed by the Labour Government.
630
This is not a matter of central Government attacking local authorities. It cannot be ignored that in many cases in Scotland a reasonable compromise has been reached. Local authorities have recognised that the Government have national objectives and public spending guidelines to which they must accommodate themselves. I must suggest a slightly uncharitable construction on the attitude of those authorities that we are debating tonight. It is that they are determined to break the Government's national economic policy. They are determined to do it step by step. The reduction in expenditure that we are discussing might not be very much on its own, but nobody can deny that it is part of a pattern. If the Government ever gave way there would be a flood of increased expenditure, which the country could not afford.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is clearly an economic expert. How will the expenditure of an extra £18·5 million break the British economy when, in the current year's Estimates, the Government will spend £624 million on fortress Falklands?
Mr. Malone: If the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of listening to what I say, he would realise that that is a foot in the door. There have been feet in the door from these regional and local authorities time and again. If ever the Government's resolve gave way, we should find an ever-increasing escalation of expenditure from those authorities.
If the relationship between central Government and local authorities is breaking down, it is because of the persistence of those local authorities in refusing to compromise with the Government. It is the Government's duty to protect not only public spending but those local authorities which have fairly agreed to work with them. That is why we have to pass these measures tonight. It would be grossly unfair to regions such as Grampian, in which my constituency lies, if we were not to take this action. Therefore, the measures should be supported.
8.5 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) but I suspect that he has revealed some of what the Secretary of State would prefer not to reveal and that is the real objective behind the measures before us tonight. The Opposition will be voting against them because they cross a threshold inasmuch as they are quite different from anything that has been presented before. It is legitimate for a Government to say that they must control what they are prepared to give to a local authority. It is legitimate for the Government to say that they must control their borrowing. That affects the national economy. But it is not true that what local government chooses to raise itself to spend on its own services affects the national economy. Local government is self-contained and self-financing. The money is raised and spent.
Mr. Bill Walker: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the services provided by other Government agencies, Departments, and quasi-Government bodies in the Lothian region which are funded by the Government, he will recognise that any increase in the rates of the Lothian region could mean an increase of over £1 million for the health board. He will realise how the problem is compounded and why the Government have to take action.
Mr. Bruce: Rates that are raised by local authorities to supplement their spending are self-balancing. The Government control borrowing and that is legitimate and right. The measures before us now take a step across a threshold that should not be crossed.
What makes the Scottish Office think that it knows Lothian's needs better than its people, officials and councillors? It is only 18 months since we have had local elections, at which those needs were presented. The road down which we are moving started, perhaps understandably, when colleagues of Labour Members in the Lothian region pursued a reckless budget, which presented the Government with a problem that had to be dealt with. The Lothian electorate has resolved that problem by turfing out that administration and electing a new council, which has responded positively by cutting the rates by 20p over the past 2 years. To say that that is not a reasonable and moderate reaction is not to be interested in the views of the local people of Lothian as expressed by the council.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out that every item of Lothian's budget was voted through in 146 votes, and it represents a bigger percentage of voters' support than any element of the Government's manifesto that will be implemented in the House in the next four years. The main problem of pursuing this line of thought is that the Government have made moderation an unacceptable course of action.
What incentive has there been for Lothian to reconsider its budget and put forward a new and reasonable budget that represents the views of most parties and the majority of voters if it is to be kicked in the teeth for doing so? The consequence will be to suggest to parties other than the minority Conservative party that there is not much point in participating in Lothian region politics because they will be overruled. That suggests that we are moving into an era of comtempt not only for local democracy but for democracy as a whole.
The Government attitude is that democracy is fine provided they and their mates finish up top of the heap. If they do not, they will change the rules, say "To hell with democracy" and do it their way. That attitude discredits local elections and local participation in local government.
Taking power to the centre creates a dangerous precedent. It is opening the door for a regime without democratic beliefs. Centralising power gives such regimes much easier means of control. Already one of the great weaknesses of our constitution is that we do not have a system of checks and balances. Undermining local government takes away one of the existing checks. It makes more and more people say, "What is the point of participating in the democratic process?".
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is on dangerous ground when he talks about jobs.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is always on dangerous ground.
Mr. Bruce: He said that the chamber of commerce had identified 1,800 jobs that had been saved because of rate reductions. Yet the report before us shows that Lothian regional council lost 2,088 jobs because of cuts. That is hardly an overall net gain.
Local authorities actually spend money on local businesses. Because they have had to cut that expenditure, many firms have lost council business and some have even
632
ceased trading. It misleads the House to suggest that there is no relationship between council spending and private enterprise. Conservative Members say that they want business put out to private tender, which is an acknowledgement that councils have worthwhile business to put out. The Government cannot have it both ways, although they try to do so.
The report reveals the Secretary of State's true ambition. He really wants to be the convenor of Lothian regional council.
Mr. Canavan: The Marquess of Lothian.
Mr. Bruce: The Secretary of State could resign his seat in Ayr, stand for election to the Lothian regional council and pursue his policies. The advantage of that would be that when he inherits his title and moves to another place he can keep that job. If he intends to put further orders of this sort before the House, I wish that he would make that move sooner rather than later.
8.13 pm
Mr. Ron Brown: We all know that Parliament represents class interests, and that is even more true since the general election. The Government have a substantial majority, but that does not mean substantial support throughout the country. The case put forward by the Secretary of State was predictable — bad but consistent. We have recognised for some time that he has thrown moderation, caution and reason out of the Tory window. Tories do not consider such virtues any longer. They want to solve the economic crisis at the expense of the working class.
Let us consider the Government's tactics. First, they attack real wages and living standards and then move to social services, local services and local government. They speak of local services as though they were charity. They are not charity, but something that we have fought for over the years. All of us, especially working people, have earned those services and have the right to see them in operation.
Tories claim that Tory freedom works and that their system of society means something. It certainly means something to big business, which backs the Tory party and benefits from Tory policies. The Tories sometimes condemn luxuries and frills in local government yet the one luxury left untouched is interest payments paid as tribute to the City of London. The Government can destroy everything, send people to the breadline and the soup kitchens, but interest payments must be maintained and improved. That is the nature of the society in which they believe.
When individuals say "Whoa" and claim that Government policies are unfair, the Government say that they believe in democracy. But democracy for the Tory party is like a piece of chewing gum — it can be stretched one way or the other.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. A number of hon. Members wish to catch my eye. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the order.
Mr. Brown: We are talking about democracy, which affects local government. If it does not, there is something wrong with this Chamber. I say that with all respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us not be kidded—democracy

633
affects local government. The Government thinks that it is a piece of chewing gum that can be stretched. They stretch workers' rights.
The Government have no mandate in Scotland. They may have a mandate elsewhere, but not in Scotland. They sell their ideas through Saatchi and Saatchi and do all sorts of clever things, such as using slogans. I think that the latest was "Cheer up, the Tories are coming". No one is cheering in my area, and certainly not the unemployed, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the young and the old age pensioners. The only people cheering are the skinheads of big business, the CBI and, perhaps, the chamber of commerce in Edinburgh, which has been much quoted tonight. Those are the only people who count for the Tories. It is all to do with the class nature of politics savoured by the Tory party.
The Tories and the CBI represent the capitalist system. That system is unfair, inefficient, corrupt and dangerous. It is unfair because wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It is inefficient because of the waste of resources, especially human resources. It is corrupt because of the behaviour of those with vested interests, such as the Vestey family. It is dangerous, as proved by recent events in the South Atlantic and the so-called defence policy.
Lothian Labour councillors have been vilified by the media because they have stood up for the principle that human need is important. They have been challenged by the Secretary of State. They have had to suffer much but principles are important to our movement. We in the Labour movement do not worry when we are attacked by the Tory press. If we are praised by the Tory press we cannot be doing our job.
We hear a great deal about Lothian region overspending, but Labour councillors invest in people. Is that not important? The Government spend a great deal of money on nuclear weapons—that is another argument but it is not an argument of the Labour party. Today in Lothian region Labour councillors are not in charge. The Tory-SDP alliance are in charge and it is trying to work out a compromise. It is agreeing to introduce policies that the Secretary of State wants. That means effectivelyy that it is doing the Tories' dirty work. Those councillors give all sorts of explanations for their actions but they are cutting back. The cutbacks are not as severe as the Secretary of State would like to see but ordinary working people in my area are affected.
We know that the Secretary of State has a hit list and that the number one target on the hit list is Lothian.
Mr. Canavan: The Marquess of Lothian.
Mr. Brown: Some people will say that a rate refund is fine but a rate refund does not mean anything for the average person. The rate refund is a "con" job because it means that services and jobs that are so important in Lothian will be affected. The Government talk about cutting away the fat but we know full well that the fat is not there. They are cutting away the limbs of local government. That story could be repeated throughout Scotland. Many things have been said but essentially the story remains the same. Our constituents can better explain the issues. I have received a letter from a Mrs. Anne-Marie West. I shall not quote all the letter but it contains an important passage which says:
634
"I ask you, please, to think of the children whom we teach and who cannot stand up for themselves. Surely, they must be protected. Mr. Younger must see that his demands are unreasonable. Lothian Region has made a great many cuts during the past two years, and has reached a stage where it can cut no longer without drastically hurting those who rely on the services provided by the region. How can the Government possibly justify such an increase in the defence budget, while our children cannot receive a proper education and old and sick people cannot receive the care and treatment they deserve?
I ask you to vote against Mr. Younger on this subject and to make known the feelings against such stringent cuts in the Region."
There speaks the voice of reason; there speaks the voice of Lothian; there speaks the voice of the working class. That voice must be heeded. We talk a great deal about democracy but that is the voice of democracy. Whatever the politicians may say in this Chamber, that is the voice of the ordinary people of this country. It can be heard in England, Wales and Ireland as well. That is the statement that matters. If it does not, what do we have? We have the alternative of Big Brother Younger, the Secretary of State, taking over-1984 is just next year. Is that what we are offering the electorate of this country? Is that what is on the menu? Unless we fight for democracy we are not entitled to have it.
We can speak of many things in this Chamber but democracy was carved outside. It was carved from the struggles of ordinary working folk. It came from the struggles of the last century of the Chartists, the early trade unionists, the Labour party and the suffragettes. We will have the ritual dance where people will jump up and down this year and next year moaning and groaning and saying that things are going from bad to worse. That is the problem with British politics. We are conned into thinking that this is a marvellous place, that this is the centre of the political universe. It is not, but the lessons must be learnt and the Labour party must learn them or it will not get back into power. If it wants to struggle in local government and fight back against the Tories, it must be active on the street corners and at the factory gates. The Labour party must get its act together. It can do so only on a matter of principle and by building up real leadership at all levels, particularly at the basic level, on an understanding of politics and on understanding what socialism is about.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that it is correct to draw your attention to the fact that we are not here this evening to debate the problems of the Labour party. I understand that we are debating a report as it affects Lothian region.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate has gone a little wide but it is related to the Government's proposals about rate reductions in Lothian. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) will relate his remarks directly to the report.
Mr. Brown: That is correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I again emphasise that democracy in this Chamber is related to democracy outside.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The report before the House relates to the Secretary of State's decision to reduce the rate. We must discuss the merits or demerits of that proposal.
Mr. Brown: With respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is important to appreciate the sense of feeling among Scottish Labour Members who have been elected to the

635
House and have been outvoted, despite the tremendous support and mandate that we have in Scotland. We feel angry, frustrated and bitter. You can understand why, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we are arguing these points about outside activity, it is not a gesture, but a facing of reality. That reality will, of course, affect other areas. It will affect the north of England, Merseyside and elsewhere. I am not a nationalist—I am a Socialist but the front line at the moment is local government. Local councillors are defending what we have fought for consistently over the years. We are fighting for the welfare state. We are making pertinent points to the Secretary of State, which must be listened to. If they are not listened to in this Chamber, they will certainly be listened to elsewhere. That is the role of Socialists. We Jo not mourn. We organise. That thought is not original to me; it was said by Joe Hill and it still prevails. Socialism does not belong to me or to individual hon. Members here. Socialism belongs to the whole country. In particular, it belongs to those who are fighting against injustice.
8.29 pm
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Although I have been present since the beginning of the debate I shall, in the interests of my hon. Friends, curtail my remarks.
This has turned out to be a strange debate, because we have a new definition of the democratic role of local councillors. They will not take kindly to being told that they are creatures of this legislature. Ministers have always adopted the attitude that electors, if they did not like a local administration, would exercise their democratic right to elect a new one. Now, apparently, we have a change in Conservative thinking about the role of local government.
It is ironic, when discussing a measure affecting the Lothian region, to lump the other local authorities together and suggest that there is some clandestine plot to defeat the economic strategy of the Government. It is stretching imagination rather far—I thought that Mick McGahey had been relegated — to suggest that those who are trying to overthrow the democratic rights of the Government are involved in local government—those affected by the proposals. That is ridiculous.
It has been said that the report would not make any difference to the existing local government services. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and the figures that he gave. I should like to debate them with him —perhaps on another occasion—but I shall not delay the House now. It is ridiculous to suggest that the education and social services will be able to continue much as before. I hope that the Government will not adduce that argument. It is clear that the proposals will have an impact, and I shall give an example of what will happen should hon. Members be so foolish as to agree to what the Government are proposing.
I have here a letter from an elderly constituent. I will not name her—I will call her Mrs. X. This is a good example to bear in mind. Think of the elderly who want to live in their own homes but who depend on the back-up services especially the home help service as, in the twilight of their lives, they wish to have the dignity of living in the house in which they have lived for many years. Sometimes that demands great effort on their part, and often they need help.
636
My constituent had a home help. On becoming ill, my constituent went into hospital. After treatment and with courage and willpower, she felt able to return to her own home. "I want to sit at my own fireside," she said, having battled for six months to prove to the doctors that she could look after herself. She did not want to be hospitalised in the twilight of her life. She returned home to discover that the home help service had been withdrawn. I took the case up with the social services department, and the reply I received from Lothian regional council was that she
"is receiving less service than before her admission to hospital. We are not happy about the reductions in services to clients but unfortunately to keep within budgets we have no other option but to reduce services while trying to offer enough service to maintain the clients at home."
That is the position before we introduce financial cuts for the Lothian home help service. It has been suggested that 250 home helps will go if the report is implemented. The situation would become worse. It is dispicable that this lady is receiving only one hour of home help each day. I wonder whether it will be withdrawn.
The provision of social services in Midlothian is bad enough, but if the House is foolish enough to agree to the Secretary of State's motion, the position will worsen and a great disservice will be done to the sick and the elderly.
8.36 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), because his example effectively reveals the result of the Government's expenditure policy in the Lothian region. Later, I shall amplify some of his points about the home help service.
At the heart of the debate is the Government's policy of cutting public expenditure and social services and destroying public sector employment. It is fitting that we should debate this matter when we know, from leaks in the newspapers, that the Cabinet is contemplating additional expenditure cuts of hundreds of million of pounds. The Times—I heard it on radio as well—reported that the head of the CBI, Sir Terence Beckett, said:
"The state is swallowing us up; something has got to be done."
What sort of gobbledegook are we hearing from these people? We have a massive amount of under-used resources and million of people, many of them highly skilled, who want to work. It is nonsense and an insult to their intelligence for the heads of big business to lecture and say that the public sector should be cut back so that they can expand. This policy is misguided.
This country will not return to work nor will our economic problems be solved if we cut expenditure and public investment. These cuts are having a disastrous effect on the British people. That is the first issue of principle in this debate. It will be a sad day not just for the people of Lothian but for those in other parts of the country if we have another four years of such policies.
The second great issue of principle in this debate is democracy, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, well know. We are talking about a direct assault on local democracy. One of the great economic and social developments during this century has been the growth of local government with the provision of council housing for people who lived in homes without basic amenities, such as indoor toilets and bathrooms, advances in the education service — for example, nursery education — the provision of home helps and services for the mentally handicapped. It has

637
meant an enormous growth in the budgets and the importance of local government. Fundamental to that is the principle of local democracy. Elected councillors, who have played a crucial role in recent decades in looking after the economic and social well-being of our country, can decide what is best for the people in their areas. It is fundamental to our way of life that these services should be provided and democratically controlled locally and not dictated and provided from the centre.
We are seeing the principle of local democracy undermined. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the Government are turning local government into the agents of central Government. It is utterly irresponsible of the Government to enforce Tory party policy on the elected Lothian regional council for the sake of a small amount of money when only 22 of the 49 councillors are Conservative. They were elected just over a year ago.
It is nonsense for Conservative Members to say how committed they are to local democracy. It does not mean anything when one realises the lengths to which they are prepared to go in Lothian to cast aside the principle of local democratic control.
Conservative Members must learn—my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian made the point effectively this evening — what these cuts mean to the people of Lothian. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), in particular, must learn, because he had the effrontery to say on 4 July in a debate in which we both took part:
"services will be adequately maintained, I believe that ratepayers are entitled to be fully protected against unreasonable increases, especially as the employment prospects of many are tied up with keeping the rates under reasonable control."—[Official Report. 4 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 123.]
The hon. Gentleman was talking about a grandiose social works department. He was saying that cuts would be made without any real reduction in services. We know what the cuts mean to services. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian described the experience of one pensioner as a result of the cut in the home help service. In reply to a question only this week from councillor Nolan, Labour spokesman on social work of the regional council said that as a result of the cuts the number of home helps have been reduced from June 1981 to May 1983 by 288 full-time equivalents which, in fact, means around 600 home helps. Those 600 home helps serve about 1,500 people. As a result of these cuts, 1,500 people will suffer in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. If time allowed, I could give examples of the types of peole who are suffering from cuts in the home help service. They are people suffering from cancer, leukaemia and other disabilities.
I do not know what sort of a world some hon. Gentlemen live in. The Opposition have been inundated with letters about the effects of the cuts from organisations and I assume that they are writing to Conservative Members as well. They include the Lothian association of youth clubs; the campaign against reducing expenditure in Lothian, which is worried about all services, and the campaign with specific reference to primary school remedial teachers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned. If time allowed I could cite many more.
638
There are cuts in music provision. We are reaching the point, at which there will be no music teaching in primary schools and not much in secondary schools. One of my constituents asked in a letter a week ago whether there would only be opportunities for music for kids in Edinburgh who go to fee-paying schools. Is that what the Government are trying to achieve? I could giving examples of the cuts imposed on and hardships suffered by the people of Lothian. The idea that we should have more cuts as well is utterly unacceptable.
I want to touch briefly on some of the narrow reasons why it is unfair for the Government to single out the Lothian region in the way that they have done. First, there is the matter of the guidelines. They are based on what are supposed to be objective criteria, involving the concept of client groups but they are rough and ready guidelines. When the main reason for a local authority being over the guidelines is not that expenditure is going up but that the guidelines are going down, we should surely give it the benefit of the doubt, particularly when the expenditure involved is not very much. The fact that the guidelines are going down is the most important reason why the Lothian regional council is in excess of the guidelines.
Secondly, there is the question of the high investment that has been made. Whether we like it or not, we have built the new sewage works. Whether we like it or not, we have made a certain amount of provision, and we have to man that provision. We have to accommodate the revenue costs. To ignore that, or virtually to ignore it, is nonsense. The idea that our children should not have the opportunity to learn music at school because they have a sewage works which incidentally, other authorities should have provided is outrageous.
Cuts on top of cuts make the situation worse. The fact that the budget has already been cut by £53 million, and the fact that thousands of public sector jobs in Lothian have already been destroyed—over 3,000 jobs have gone—makes the additional cuts even harder.
Then there is the argument about the rate burden. It does not stand up, when one compares the rate poundage in Lothian with Strathclyde and other authorities. When one takes an average house in Lothian—not the very selective example that was given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West of a bungalow at Dalgety bay—and compares it with an average house in Strathclyde or other areas, one finds that the rate burden per household is not excessive.
Finally—and perhaps the most fundamental point of comparison—there is the level of public expenditure per head of the population. Once the cut is made, the Lothian region will be fifth out of nine. The Highland region, Strathclyde region, Tayside region and the Borders region will be spending more per head of population than this so-called high-spending regional council if the motion is accepted.
There is no case for what the Government are doing, even on the narrow criteria on which they seek to justify their actions this evening, and it is an affront to the House of Commons that we should have to deal with these motions.
8.47 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), I am desperately worried about the impact of the cuts on people throughout

639
the region and in my constituency. Old persons, children and people living in remote communities suffer enough already, without having further cuts in services imposed on them.
Again like my hon. Friends, I am also concerned about the attack on the principle of local democracy. I was astonished that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) should suggest that local authorities were creatures of central Government. He said that they were like quangos—like the Scottish Tourist Board or the Highlands and Islands Development Board. There is a difference between quangos and local authorities. Local authorities are elected, and they exercise responsibilities according to the mandates that are given to them by their electorates.
I speak with some minor experience, having been a local authority councillor in the district of Berwickshire before being elected to this House. I remember taking part in the budget-fixing exercises every year and the striking of the rate. When I resigned from that local authority and came here, I never imagined that I would be involved in the striking of a local authority rate in this place. That is what we are doing this evening. We are fixing the budget, the rates, for Lothian regional council, and for three other local authorities. That is extraordinary. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
It is particularly laughable since the Government are constantly talking about over-centralisation and excess government. The Government have, in effect, created a third tier of Scottish local government. The Secretary of State has taken powers to intervene directly to fix the rates in Lothian and elsewhere. For the Lothian region this is the third year in which we have been through this process, and no doubt the same will happen again.
The House has the power to impose on local authorities the responsibility for providing local services. The House is now exercising another perverse power to restrict the money that can be made available for the provision of services. While taking the powers, the Government refuse to take any responsibility for local authority functions. The responsibility still lies with the local authorities and councillors. Kipling said about that:
"Power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."
We constantly remind ourselves of the sovereignty of Parliament. Tonight, the Government are asking the House to exercise the sovereignty of the harlot in respect of a number of local authorities in Scotland. They are using the power to cut the budget without accepting responsibility for the consequences.
I understand that a number of local authorities asked the Secretary of State which services he thought were excessive and unreasonable. In response the Secretary of State had the gall to say that it was up to the local authorities to decide. In spite of him seeking to fix the rates, he is not prepared to say what services should be cut. He wants local councillors to take that responsibility and to accept the odium that goes with the cuts. They must choose whether to inflict the cuts on children, old people, commuters or someone else. Who on earth does the Secretary of State think he is?
I have been criticised recently for saying that the Secretary of State has no mandate to govern Scotland. I stand by that. The Secretary of State is attacking local authorities when he should be working in the Cabinet to protect Scotland's interests in the face of public
640
expenditure cuts. What is happening today shows up the Secretary of State for the Quisling that we all know he is. Even those who are unhappy about the national mandate argument must accept that the Secretary of State has no mandate to tinker with local authorities' budgets in Scotland.
Lothian regional councillors have taken their decision. They have taken into account the severely restricted rate support grant. They have assessed the needs of the people whom they represent and reached their own conclusions about the necessary budget and levied a rate accordingly —92p in the pound. That is 1p in the pound less than it is for the Strathclyde region and not far from the national average. Someone in Dover House or Whitehall has come to the conclusion that that is excessive and unreasonable, without saying why or going into detail.
I have had my say about the vagaries of the rating system. There is no doubt that rates are a considerable burden, but that has been aggravated by regular cuts in rate support grant and by continuous manipulation of the guidelines by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Despite that, four of the five parties on the Lothian regional council have come together to reach a compromise package that they believe appropriate to fund a tolerable level of services in the region. I suggest that that package was modest. It is demonstrable nonsense for the Secretary of State to describe it as excessive.
I should like to describe briefly some of the levels of service in East Lothian district, in the constituency that I represent. I am not the first person to have to assess the needs of East Lothian district. Between February and October 1974 the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), now the Under-Secretary of State, was the Member of Parliament for Berwick and East Lothian, which included most of East Lothian district. He circulated an election address in October 1974, which listed several of the things for which he was fighting for additional expenditure in East Lothian. On the subject of private housing improvement grants we saw the headline:
"MP joins grants fight."
Another headline ran:
"Central Government should subsidise festivals, says Ancram."
That would go down well with the Musselburgh Honest Toun's Association. He was actually suggesting that such festivals should be subsidised by central Government.
Another headline stated:
"Public transport needs immediate help, says MP".
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that things have not changed. Public transport in East Lothian is still pretty ropey. It needs to be improved, not cut. The hon. Gentleman said that it needed to be improved then, so why on earth does he tell the House that he wants to cut it now? Another headline said:
"MP stresses urgent need for more houses."
I could go on and on.
The point is that East Lothian still has pressing needs, and the recent cuts in services that have been imposed with indecent enthusiasm by the hon. Gentleman and by the new minority administration of Lothian region have made matters even worse than they were then. I could speak about cuts in the bus services and the threat that they pose, in particular, to the remote communities in my constituency. I could also talk about the further erosion of the concessionary travel schemes which are being threatened in Lothian region. I could mention the great

641
stress under which our home help service is operating, but my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian has already mentioned that. Instead, I shall concentrate on the subject of education.
The greatest protests in my constituency concern the fact that Lothian region has already imposed sever cuts in teaching staff, in both secondary and primary schools. One of the small village schools in my constituency, at Humbie, is under threat of closure. Seven village schools with rolls of under 50 may be under threat of closure in East Lothian. Other communities, such os Ormiston, Wallyford, Prestonpans, and East Linton, have experienced cuts in the number of teachers that are more severe than are justified by the fall in pupil numbers. If the Minister wants me to quote figures, I shall be happy to do so, because I have plenty with me. However, I think that the House wants to make haste.
Campie school in Musselburgh already has the minimum pupil-teacher ratio. If there is any increase in the number of children in that catchment area during the course of the year, those children will have to be bussed to another area. The school has reached saturation point because of the cuts in the number of teachers. Meanwhile, inordinate numbers of teachers are on the dole. The situation is obscene.
The Government seek to set the seal on that miserable package of cuts and to make it worse. They want to impose £11 million of cuts on Lothian region, which represents 6p on the rates. About £6 million of that £11 million will presumably come out of the education budget. There is no justification for any of those cuts. I have received dozens of representations from all over my constituency. They have been made, in particular, because of the threat to schools, and also because of concern about other services. The message is clear. People are more interested in protecting the standard of education and other services than in having a rate refund equivalent to about 19p per week per household. It is just not worth it, as those in my constituency and elsewhere in Lothian recognise.
When the Division bells ring, droves of Conservative Members for English constituencies, who have probably never heard of Lothian region and do not even know where it is, will pour into the Lobby to inflict unwarranted and unwanted cuts in the standards of services to my constituents. About 200 of them did that when the previous Division took place, and presumably they will do so again when we divide on this issue. They have certainly not been in the Chamber listening to the arguments as the debate has proceeded. If the 200 or more English Conservative Members support the Government in their Lobby, they will cause considerable distress in my constituency and add to the discredit that the Secretary of State has already brought upon the House. I hope that they will not do so. However, I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Scottish Members will vote against the Government.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to describe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a Quisling?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a parliamentary term. I was not in the Chamber when it was used.
Mr. Walker: I only wanted to know whether it was in order.
Mr. Canavan: It was not strong enough.
Mr. Speaker: I know that Scottish debates are good humoured—
Mr. Home Robertson: Not this one.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it will be good humoured from now on. I think that enough has been said on that point of order.
9.1 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I know that Scottish debates are good-humoured, but I shall be brief in making my contribution to the debate and I shall not push my luck. I am anxious to participate in the debate on behalf of the SDP—
Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is the first SDP Member to do so.
Mr. Kennedy: My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has addressed the House on behalf of the Liberal party. Given the delicate balance of power in the Lothian region, of which I am sure the Secretary of State is only too well aware, it is appropriate that the other half of the Alliance should make its contribution.
Mr. Canavan: Where is Jenkins? Where is he?
Mr. Kennedy: When the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) was not in the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) made an excellent contribution to the debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will do so later.
When we received a briefing this morning from the Lothian delegation, it was clear that it was looking beyond this debate to the future. There is a great deal of doubt and confusion about "excessive and unreasonable expenditure". The Lothian representatives are disappointed that the Secretary of State has not been more specific and has not clarified the matter more fully. They said that they felt that they were up against a brick wall in trying to get more specific information from the Scottish Office and in seeking further clarification.
We know that the Government will secure a majority when we divide at the end of the debate and that the measure will pass through the House. However, I hope that in future they will make every attempt to ensure that confusion and anxiety do not arise again should this sort of issue emerge once more in respect of the Lothian region or other authorities. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman in a constructive manner.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) spoke about the need for compromise. I was interested by the measure of application that he gave to that term. On 4 July the hon. Gentleman said in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that
"compromise is the essence of politics."—[Official Report, 4 July 1983: Vol. 45, c. 122.]
I could not agree wih him more. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was echoing the words of one of the most distinguished members of his party in bygone years, the late Mr. R. A. Butler, who described politics as being largely the art of the possible.
The Government are facing a contradiction in the report on Lothian regional council. We have a shining example there of political compromise and an excellent example of adaptability and agreement being reached on a budget by

643
locally elected representatives. Instead of accepting that expression of local opinion and that compromise budget, the Government will reject it and try to penalise the regional council when they use their majority in the Lobby. That is a disturbing trend, particularly when one thinks, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, that it took 145 votes to pass the previous motion. Heaven knows, after the number of votes cast this week over our wage claims, that is a large number. Despite the tortuous process, the Secretary of State is now introducing this measure to penalise the regional authority. It is sad.
I repeat my plea that in future there will be as much cooperation and flow of information between the Scottish Office and the regional councils as possible. Furthermore, I hope that the Government will realise the contradiction with which they are faced. On the one hand they are supporting nationally a philosophy of rolling back the parameters of the state, yet on this occasion, when local democracy has made a compromise decision, which has been accepted, they are extending the powers of the state to penalise the authority. That is disturbing. The alliance regrets it and hopes that it will not need to be repeated in future.
9.6 pm
The Under-Secretary of State far Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I listened with a great deal of attention to the speeches in this full debate. I shall try to sum up and deal with some of the points that were made reasonably briefly.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) accused both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself of putting up a brick wall against the council's request for clarification. The people in the council who had made the compromise, as the hon. Gentleman called it, visited us. We listened to their submissions and made an adjustment to the rate reduction demand that my right hon. Friend originally proposed. I would have thought that that was a sign of the way in which their submissions were listened to and their arguments given due weight. If anything, the consultation with them and the flexibility shown by my right hon. Friend give the lie to the accusation that we have been inflexible or that we have not been prepared to listen.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not go into the particular services that they mentioned. It is not for the Government to go into them—
Mr. Canavan: Why not?
Mr. Ancram: If I were to go into the services and say where I thought economies should be made, I would be accused of undermining local democracy. It is for local authorities to make up their minds on that.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). I learnt a lot about the internal workings of the Labour party in what I took to be an ideologically pure speech. He referred to the needs of his constituents. I was given a letter this morning written to the convenor of Lothian region from a company in the hon. Gentleman's constituency called Unitank Storage company. As he is interested in his constituents, he might be interested to hear what was said in the letter. That company operates a bulk liquid storage installation
644
at the Imperial dock, Leith. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows about it. The divisional managing director wrote:
"I am writing to tell you how pleased we are to see the change in policy of the Lothian Regional Council and how much we appreciate your efforts in reducing the rate burden. The rates have had a quite disproportionate impact on our profitability since 1977 and, although the rate burden is still higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, he can at least consider further investment in Leith."
The hon. Gentleman talks often about the problems of unemployment in his area. I am sure that they are great. I am also sure that he would welcome any move that is likely to produce more jobs in his constituency. In this case, such a move is a reduction in the rates.
Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that rates have increased and services have been cut because the Government have cut rate support grant? They have done that repeatedly. The press does not mention it because it is the Government's press, but that is the truth.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is making the same point that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) made earlier—if the Government maintained rate support grant at a given level rates would nave been reduced. It does not follow naturally that that would happen. However, if, after reductions in rate support grant, councils had reduced expenditure as they were asked to do by the Government and as the Government had a right to ask them to do, there would have been no rate increases. The hon. Gentleman's argument is invalid to that extent.
The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made several important points. Both mentioned the guidelines. As I said at the end of the previous debate, we had a system of guidelines that was based largely on historic expenditure. It tended to favour councils with a higher level of expenditure, to the detriment of councils that handled their expenditure more carefully. The guidelines were rough and ready in the sense that the hon. Member for Livingston understands. At the moment, the guidelines are being based on an assessment of the needs in each area. The Scottish Office is not alone in making that assessment—local authorities are co-operating. I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston will bear that in mind when he criticises the guidelines. After all, they were introduced by the Labour Government. They were rough and ready then and remained so in the early years of the previous Government. They are now improving and we are continuing to improve them. I am grateful for the cooperation that we have received from COSLA.
Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister now reply to the point that I made in my speech? If the guidelines for the supposedly comparable authorities are diverging so markedly from the guideline for Lothian—by a factor of 17 per cent. in the past two years—would he care to explain how those authorities are comparable with Lothian although they require different guideline treatment?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that the comparisons are based on several criteria, only one of which is spending in excess of the guidelines. If he is prepared to accept that the guidelines are becoming more accurate assessments of the needs and expenditure requirements of the various authorities—no one claims that they are perfect—what has happened in the past

645
few years might reflect what many of us have suspected for a long time, that expenditure in Lothian has been far too high. What is now happening in Lothian is a reflection of high spending policies in the past.
Mr. William McKelvey: When the guidelines are drawn up, how much thought is given to what happens when there is a cut in services such as has been mentioned? How much thought goes into the human misery that cuts in services create? Is that misery conveniently forgotten just as the Minister has forgotten about it today?
Mr. Ancram: An important feature of the way in which the guidelines are worked out is that there is a possibility of examining changes. One has to build in a factor to ensure that the change in the guidelises in not excessive, as that would cause disruption in a local authority's spending plans. The various client groups are examined and it is possible to make an assessment when circumstances have changed. To that extent it is a fairer system and it should be welcomed. I appreciate, however, that some hon. Members believe that they are being especially hard done by and prefer the old rough and ready method which was less general.
The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned several criteria, but he has not understood that the assessment made by my right hon. Friend in deciding whether to take selective action is based not on one criterion but on a combination of criteria. It is a balance between several criteria, which gives him the ability to decide whether a local authority's expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. It is not for him or for me to take one criterion and to say that the case has been proved on the basis of that alone. That was the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which does not hold water.
Several hon. Members have mentioned expenditure per head of the population. In an interesting and useful speech—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I accept that there is a problem in referring to individual services, but my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned the urgent problem of remedial teachers, which is a policy matter for the Scottish Education Department. Does the Minister have any comment on that central Government responsibility?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must realise that I do not have responsibility for such matters. He can write to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for education, who will answer his question about Government policy. My hon. Friend is sitting here, and I am sure that he heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), in an interesting and useful speech, gave the House the facts about per capita expenditure. However, the hon. Member for Livingston was correct to say that expenditure per head in Lothian region is not the highest in Scotland. Two other regions spend more, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that they do so for special reasons, several of which he underlined during his speech. Per capita expenditure in Lothian region at £439·14 is above the average for all regions—
Mr. Robin Cook: By 3 per cent.
Mr. Ancram: —which is £424·03, and it is above the average for comparable authorities, which is £403·24.
The case that we are putting before the House is based on the three criteria stated by my right hon. Friend, which I shall repeat now. The guideline excess of 13 per cent. is the highest of any region and is well above the average for other Scottish regions, which stands at roughly half that level. Expenditure per head is higher than in any other region, except the two that have special circumstances, and despite the fact that last year my right hon. Friend, in giving Lothian time to make the adjustments needed, made it clear that further savings in expenditure should be made this year, there has been no expenditure reduction since 1982–83. On that basis, Lothian's expenditure in the current year is unreasonable and excessive. I ask the House to approve the order.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 144.

Division No. 39]

[9.19 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Hayward, Robert

Ancram, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Heddle, John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Henderson, Barry

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hickmet, Richard

Bright, Graham

Hicks, Robert

Brooke, Hon Peter

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Bruinvels, Peter

Hirst, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Chapman, Sydney

Holt, Richard

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hordern, Peter

Colvin, Michael

Howard, Michael

Cope, John

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Corrie, John

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Crouch, David

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunter, Andrew

Dorrell, Stephen

Jackson, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Jessel, Toby

Dover, Denshore

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dunn, Robert

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Eggar, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Evennett, David

Key, Robert

Eyre, Reginald

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Fallon, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Farr, John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Favell, Anthony

Knowles, Michael

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lang, Ian

Fletcher, Alexander

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Forth, Eric

Lester, Jim

Freeman, Roger

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Gale, Roger

Lightbown, David

Galley, Roy

Lilley, Peter

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Lord, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lyell, Nicholas

Goodlad, Alastair

McCrindle, Robert

Gorst, John

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Gower, Sir Raymond

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Grant, Sir Anthony

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Gregory, Conal

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Ground, Patrick

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

Gummer, John Selwyn

McQuarrie, Albert

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Malins, Humfrey

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Malone, Gerald

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maples, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Marland, Paul

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Harvey, Robert

Maude, Francis

Haselhurst, Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Mellor, David

Hawksley, Warren

Merchant, Piers

647

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spence, John

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Spencer, D.

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Miscampbell, Norman

Squire, Robin

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Moate, Roger

Stanley, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Stern, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Murphy, Christopher

Stradling Thomas, J.

Neale, Gerrard

Sumberg, David

Needham, Richard

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Nelson, Anthony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Neubert, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Newton, Tony

Terlezki, Stefan

Norris, Steven

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Parris, Matthew

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thornton, Malcolm

Patten, John (Oxford)

Tracey, Richard

Pawsey, James

Trippier, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Trotter, Neville

Pink, R. Bonner

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pollock, Alexander

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Powell, William (Corby)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Viggers, Peter

Price, Sir David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Raffan, Keith

Waldegrave, Hon William

Rathbone, Tim

Walden, George

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Renton, Tim

Waller, Gary

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Warren, Kenneth

Roe, Mrs Marion

Watts, John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Ryder, Richard

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Wheeler, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Whitfield, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wilkinson, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Wolfson, Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wood, Timothy

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Yeo, Tim

Shersby, Michael

Younger, Rt Hon George

Sims, Roger

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mr. John Major and

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mr. Douglas Hogg.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Boyes, Roland

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

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

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

Barnett, Guy

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Barron, Kevin

Bruce, Malcolm

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Caborn, Richard

Bell, Stuart

Campbell, Ian

Bermingham, Gerald

Canavan, Dennis

Bidwell, Sydney

Clarke, Thomas

Blair, Anthony

Cohen, Harry

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Coleman, Donald

648

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

McTaggart, Robert

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

McWilliam, John

Corbett, Robin

Madden, Max

Cowans, Harry

Marek, Dr John

Craigen, J. M.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Crowther, Stan

Martin, Michael

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Maxton, John

Dalyell, Tam

Meacher, Michael

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Meadowcroft, Michael

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

Michie, William

Deakins, Eric

Mikardo, Ian

Dewar, Donald

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Dixon, Donald

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Dormand, Jack

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dubs, Alfred

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Nellist, David

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Eadie, Alex

O'Neill, Martin

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

Park, George

Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

Patchett, Terry

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Pavitt, Laurie

Ewing, Harry

Pendry, Tom

Fatchett, Derek

Pike, Peter

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Fisher, Mark

Radice, Giles

Flannery, Martin

Randall, Stuart

Forrester, John

Redmond, M.

Foster, Derek

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Foulkes, George

Richardson, Ms Jo

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Garrett, W. E.

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Robertson, George

Godman, Dr Norman

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Golding, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Sheerman, Barry

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R

Hardy, Peter

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Skinner, Dennis

Heffer, Eric S.

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

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Home Robertson, John

Soley, Clive

Hoyle, Douglas

Stott, Roger

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Strang, Gavin

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Straw, Jack

John, Brynmor

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Tinn, James

Kennedy, Charles

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Kirkwood, Archibald

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lambie, David

Wareing, Robert

Lamond, James

Welsh, Michael

Leadbitter, Ted

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Wilson, Gordon

Litherland, Robert

Winnick, David

Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

Woodall, Alec

McCartney, Hugh

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

McGuire, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

McKelvey, William

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Mr. Norman Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Reduction (Lothian Region) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Rates (Stirling District)
9.30 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the Rate Reduction (Stirling District) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
Like Lothian, Stirling district has been the subject of selective action in the two years previous to this. In 1981 Stirling preferred to lose grant rather than return savings to the ratepayers. In 1982 common sense prevailed and, following the approval of a report by the House, the council reduced its rate by 4p. That rate reduction was the equivalent to a smaller expenditure reduction of £832,000 than that originally proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and approved by the House — a reduction of £1·2 million.
In accepting the proposed rate reduction my right hon. Friend made it clear that he regarded the savings to be made by it as only a first step in reducing the council's expenditure to a level which he could accept as satisfactory. He also made it clear that he expected the council to consider urgently further reductions in expenditure in 1983–84. It is a matter for regret that my right hon. Friend's act of understanding on that occasion has not been repaid in a substantial expenditure reduction this year.
However, for 1983–84 Stirling's guideline excess was, at 29·5 per cent., well above the average and its expenditure per head at £68·89 was above that of comparable authorities. [Interruption.] Its reduction in expenditure from 1982–83 appears to my right hon. Friend to be insufficient to bring its expenditure down to a reasonable level. The reduction from last year's outturn was less than 1 per cent.
As with other authorities against which my right hon. Friend initiated selective action, he gave careful consideration to the council's representations and limited the original rate reduction that he proposed from 3p to 2p. The council had the opportunity to make that reduction voluntarily and I understand that its policy and resources committee was prepared to recommend a reduction in the rate, although not of the level that my right hon. Friend had proposed.
It is a pity for the ratepayers of Stirling that, having accepted that rates should come down, the council, like Kirkcaldy, put the political gesture before its ratepayers' interests. That left my right Friend with no choice but to lay a report as the means of returning the justifiable savings to the ratepayers of Stirling and it is that for which I seek the support of the House tonight.
9.33 pm
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: This is a ritual which the Minister has already outlined in the debates that we have had in the House over the past few years about Stirling. It is part of a debate which many of us have had to put up with over the past three years when we were seeing the powers of local authorities in Scotland being continually eroded. However, in days gone by we have had the services of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who used to argue the case on behalf of the Government and when there was a possibility of some kind of serious debate on the matter.
We have had this evening an understandably short but wholly unjustified attack on Stirling. The substance of the
650
Government's case against Stirling has not been argued. The local authority is being denied the right to provide the services that the electorate want. The Government are required to prove their case against Stirling, and we want that done tonight. It has not been done and the onus still rests on the Government to justify the imposition they are making on a democratically elected authority.
Over the years Stirling has become aware of the need to improve services. The services were so inadequate in the late 1970s that even the Right-wing majority on the council realised that something had to be done. In 1978–79 it underspent by 3·6 per cent. Today, it is 29·5 per cent. in excess of the guidelines.
It would be wrong to suggest that Stirling is the only district in that position. Some 13 districts are spending in excess of 25 per cent. above the guidelines. Only Glasgow of the other top five high-spending authorities is also on the hit list. Aberdeen, Ettrick and Lauderdale, Dunfermline and Cumnock and Doon all spent more than Stirling. As the guidelines have been undermined, perhaps we can say that they do not matter. It could be argued that, if we took account of the Government's cuts in expenditure, we would be discussing an even lower figure tonight.
Stirling cannot easily be compared with other authorities. Few others have the urban nucleus together with the large rural hinterland of Stirling. The adjustment from the rate support grant to the client group method has brought about even more abuses of the already irrational basis of comparison.
The Secretary of State has undergone a number of changes of mind. Since 1981–82 he has tried to compare Stirling with 10 other authorities. He used four authorities in the first year and scrapped three of those the following year. A year later he used another four. No reason has been given for those changes. There was no discussion with Stirling about the basis upon which it was being compared with other authorities. The comparable authorities which spent more than Stirling were not on the hit list.
In 1983–84, all comparators were planning an increase in excess of Stirling for expenditure, rates and the average domestic rate bill, yet in all those instances Stirling is making a reduction. Cunninghams and Kyle and Carrick have either spent or are planning to spend more than Stirling during the period 1978–79 to 1983–84. Cunninghams has had higher rate increases than Stirling since 1978–79.
It is not as though the services provided by Stirling are in excess of other Scottish authorities. It is the fifth highest spender in cleansing the tenth in planning, the third in libraries and museums, the sixteenth in leisure and recreation, the first in environmental health, the nineteenth in burial grounds and, perhaps most important of all, the thirty-ninth in administration.
No one is trying to suggest that Stirling is a low-spending authority. Those days have gone. At the last district elections the electorate voted for better services, and that is what they are getting. They are also getting a far better adminstration and far better value for money. This authority is a credit to Scottish local government. It is providing at a relatively low cost better services than many other authorities and is doing so in a way that will enable it to have a reasonble level of spending.
On any basis of comparison, six districts will be spending more; five districts will have a bigger excess over guidelines; five districts will have higher rates; and

651
five districts will have a higher domestic rate bill. In all, that accounts for 10 different authorities, only one of which is on the hit list. The desirability of these services is now accepted within Stirling. We have heard much this evening of the cross-party agreement in Lothian. The Conservative produced their budget at the finance meeting in Sterling. The budget was for 28 per cent. over the guidelines. The Labour majority had a bigger figure of 29·5 per cent. It would appear that everyone except the Secretary of State is out of step in Scotland.
We were told before the legislation was passed that the aim was to cut public expenditure. The contribution of this order to cutting the overspend of local authorities throughout the United Kingdom is 0·02 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. If the report is agreed this evening, the overspend of British local authorities will still be 99·98 per cent. of the total.
What will be the result of this cut? We will see once again an abuse of local democracy. In Stirling, there is a wide measure of consensus between the Conservative and Labour groups on the quality of services, but those views will be cast aside. It will happen in a way that will do Scotland, and the office of the Secretary of State, no credit.
We were told earlier this evening that Stirling district council was putting political gestures before the ratepayers. In the short time available to me I have tried to make it clear that Stirling recognises that its citizens are entitled to decent services, that the community as a whole wants decent services and that the only people who are stopping them from getting those services in a responsible and efficient manner are the Secretary of State and his running boy. "Chairman Earl", across the way.
We wish to make it clear that we shall divide the House on the report. We shall be opposing the Government's political gesture by taking the only action that is available to us and we shall be expressing our support and confidence for a good authority that is seeking to protect its people.
9.42 pm
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am glad that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) raised the issue of mandate and what the electorate voted for in Stirling. The electorate in Stirling had an opportunity to vote in the not too distant past and long after the district council elections to which he refers. The electorate of Stirling voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Member of Parliament and it rejected the extravagant policies on which that district council had embarked. Even if the electorate in that constituency, who are included in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, had voted for the extravagant policies which the leader of the council, the Labour candidate, advocated, he would still have suffered defeat at the polls. There is no local mandate in Stirling for this extravagance. No election address promising catastrophic rate increases of 122 per cent. was delivered during those council elections.
My experience during the election campaign was one with which hon. Members south of the border may be not familiar. Callendar is not a big place and it is possible to drive along the high street and miss most of the shops, but six of them closed last year.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: That is the fault of the Tory Government.
Mr. Forsyth: Six shops in one street in one tiny village closed because they could not pay their rates — rates levied by the Stirling district council. The Opposition play down the effects of high rating and make out that central Government are to blame. Tell that to my constituents who are involved in the tourist trade, who must compete with neighbouring Perth and Kinross, where the rate is 18½p in the pound compared with Stirling's 40p. The hoteliers must meet that cost. It means less business and fewer jobs, about which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) always tells us of his concern.
Nobody in Stirling I have come across, not even the leader of the district council, would argue that the standard of service in Stirling district is twice as good as that in Perth and Kinross, but the bill is more than twice as much.
The difference between us is one of ideology. That ideology would have that council continue with its irresponsible spending, and the Government are right to stop that kind of behaviour. Local government in Scotland under Socialist control is helping to cripple the progress we are making with the economy in Scotland. It employs 20 per cent. more staff per head than the rest of the United Kingdom. We must never forget, for all the talk of democracy, that those who foot the bill—most of them in industry, commerce and trade — have no vote in district council elections. But they had a vote, which was clear, when they decided to close their businesses and leave the constituency.
Stirling district council has shown, by its history, its attitude to selective action. In 1980–81 the Secretary of State proposed a reduction of 6p in the rates. The same arguments came up — indeed, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West was there arguing the same case—about services being destroyed and the most appalling devastation being brought to the constituency. My right hon. Friend gave way and lowered the reduction from 6p to 4p.
The doom and gloom about which we were told was not forthcoming. At the end of that financial year, Stirling district found itself with the embarrassment of an enormous surfeit of money, about 2p of rate which the Secretary of State, out of his concern, had allowed the council to keep. What did those concerned on the council do with it? They rushed out and bought themselves a football ground and paid off the football club's overdraft.
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the purchase of Anfield. I suggest that he waits to see what happens there because it is clear from the interest that is being shown in that site that it is likely that the town will obtain a valuable asset of tremendous use to the ratepayers far beyond the simple confines of a football stadium.
Mr. Forsyth: I have no desire to debate the merits of local authorities being in the football business. I am simply pointing out the threats which we heard from the district council and Labour Members about the social services and so on suffering. That did not occur because they were left with money to do various other things. What are they doing in this financial year? They are talking about giving £50,000 to a company in the form of a loan to develop a bowling club.
Local democracy in Stirling is the sort of local democracy which has not even given the Conservative members on that council—nine compared with Labour's 10 — the opportunity to discuss the response to the

653
Secretary of State's initiative. Their local democracy is the sort of democracy which keeps the elected Conservative members out of discussing policy but illegally invites trade union representatives into the workings of the council to discuss, according to their vested interests, how ratepayers' money should be spent and not saved.
I had the pleasure of reading in some detail and responding to the Stirling district's submission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The argument about democracy can be summed up in this way. The most democratic way to deal with other people's money is to leave it in their pockets and allow them to spend it themselves. Stirling district council has increased its manpower by about 18 per cent. since 1980 to a projected 1,010 in 1983–84. That means a 43 per cent. increase in leisure and recreation staff and a 27 per cent. increase in its inefficient direct labour organisation which is involved in housing repairs. Last year alone the numbers employed by that authority increased by 4 per cent. The rate increase of 1981–82 of 122 per cent. brought greater hardship throughout the constituency. Had my right hon. Friend not intervened, instead of paying a 40p rate we would have been paying a 46p rate. Expenditure is about £68·89 a head compared with the average of £58·68.
In its submission the district council says that it does not like guidelines. No spendthrift likes his overdraft limit or his bank manager. The council argues that statistical methods of establishing need should not be considered. However, it has never argued against the rate of support grant, which is determined on the same overall basis. The council claimed credit for achieving a real reduction in expenditure. It has achieved that, but, my goodness, expenditure started at a high level and the fact that the authorities could do that shows that they raised rates and destroyed jobs needlessly. That is the same catalogue of scare stories designed to frighten the public. Stirling district council argues that cuts in services must be the inevitable consequence of expenditure costs and that a loss of jobs will result.
Stirling district council and its executives are planning a reorganisation to bring about efficiency. This means bringing in more chiefs at high salaries to police ever-increasing numbers of Indians. They have ignored the pleas, not just from the Conservatives but from the ratepayers' association and others, to invite tenders for services and to introduce volunteers, despite claims of savings of more than 2p on rates. They blame the Government for adding to their obligations, burdens and expenses. It is true that some measures add to their obligations, but others, such as council house sales, produce savings year in, year out on the housing revenue account. However, Stirling district council has dragged its feet on that issue to an obscene degree, resulting in delays. The average time taken to buy a council house in the Stirling district was 22 months. Some people had to wait more than three years. Not only is that financially irresponsible, but it is irresponsible treatment of council tenants.
Government economic policy must take precedence over the dreams and profligate plans of local politicians. Stirling district council is extravagant and irresponsible, and it has acted without any mandate or support from the constituency. Its performance was overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate in the general election.
654
I welcome the measures proposed by the Secretary of State. They offer protection for my constituents, including the elderly who receive four-figure rate bills that they cannot pay. I welcome the 2p rate reduction. However, I regret that the Minister has been almost too reasonable in letting the council have that reduction; he should have gone for the full 3p. The council should count itself lucky that the Minister has again placed his trust in it.
I hope that the money that is left to the council will be used more responsibly than in the past. This report will be widely welcomed in Stirling. It will provide a greater boost to jobs and businesses than any other Government action.
9.54 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. Although I no longer have a direct constituency interest in Stirling district and its affairs, nevertheless, I suppose that I should, like the Secretary of State, declare my interest. I am a ratepayer and, like the Secretary of State, if the order is passed, we will perhaps receive some money in our pockets from a rate rebate. However, I differ from the Secretary of State; because I want better services not just for myself and my family but for the community.
The Secretary of State, like the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—it sticks in my craw to call him the hon. Member for Stirling because if it had not been for the gerrymandering of Tory Sheriff Taylor, the hon. Member would not be here tonight. He is not the Member for Stirling district. He may be the Member for the cooked-up gerrymandering constituency invented by Sheriff Taylor—
Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
Mr. John Maxton: Sit down.
Mr. Forsyth: I should like to make it clear that if one took that part of Stirling district which is not in my constituency and assumed that every elector would have voted for my Labour opponent, I should still have been elected. I have a mandate to represent Stirling district.
Mr. Canavan: That is pure hypothesis. The hon. Gentleman knows that the only reason why Fallin, Plean, Cowie and Throsk were transported across the water was to make it easier for him or some other Tory placeman to come in to this place and misrepresent the interests of the people of Stirling district.
The hon. Gentleman does not represent the interests of the people of Stirling district. He represents the gerrymandering Tory part of Stirling district invented by Sheriff Taylor in which the Secretary of State lives. The Secretary of State stands to receive a rebate if the order is approved tonight.
Almost 10 years ago, before I came here, I was the first leader of the Labour group on Stirling district council. We were then a minority. I always stated that we would control Stirling district one day. I believed—the majority of working class people within Stirling district eventually realised that I was right—that the only way in which we could improve local government services, whether at regional or district level — education, social work, environmental health, leisure, recreation and so on—was by returning a Labour-controlled district council in Stirling.

655
I am pleased to report that in 1980 we almost achieved that. We had parity. We had 10 out of the 20 seats. There was one enlightened independent member from a rural area who decided that a socialist administration would be in the interests of the people that he represented as well as those of Stirling district in general. We had a working majority with the casting vote of my good friend, convener councillor Edward Monahan. Since then there have been many progressive changes in that part of Stirling district which used to be in Perth county and which was inherited from the previous Tory Administration represented by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) the former Solicitor-General, who was deservedly sacked. People in Aberfoyle, Doune and Dunblane, and in much of the rural area that falls within Stirling district now admit that the services provided for them, whether in libraries, bucket collecting or whatever, are far superior to the parsimonious attitude which has been adopted for many years by—
It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Medical Bill [Lords], the Car Tax Bill [Lords], and the Value Added Tax Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Rates (Stirling District)
Question again proposed.
Mr. Canavan: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that you were going to follow the will of your predecessor in calling me to order, but I now realise that it was just the Ten o'clock motion.
Since Labour got effective control of Stirling district council in 1980, a campaign of continued victimisation — indeed, a vendetta — has been conducted by the Secretary of State for Scotland who, I repeat, has a vested interest, and whose lug is very open to the blandishments of the local Tory establishment when it says to him, "Why do you not get a grip of this Left-wing element who are supposed to be in control of Stirling district council?" We have seen that taking place, even to the extent of gerrymandering of the constituency boundary so as to bring the hon. Member here. The councillors of Stirling district, some of whom have travelled the many hundreds of miles her tonight to listen to this debate, and who will go back again to represent their people, have a much better mandate than the Secretary of State for Scotland has to represent the people. It is about time that the Secretary of State realised that.
I put a question to the Secretary of State: why is there this victimisation? When the Government were elected in 1979 they claimed that they would reduce public expenditure. That was their great aim, and that is what all this is supposed to be about, according to the Secretary of State. He says "We need to reduce public expenditure, and therefore we have to hammer the likes of Stirling district council."
Since 1980, shortly after the Secretary of State was returned as Secretary of State—appointed as Secretary of State, rather, because he was never returned, certainly not by the people of Scotland—since the time when he became the Prime Minister's placeman to look after Scotland, supposedly, we have had a 12 per cent. increase
656
in central Government expenditure, and a 3 per cent. decrease in local government expenditure. In other words, local government is doing its best, rightly or wrongly, to meet expenditure targets, and it is meeting those targets far more successfully than central Government. Part of the reason for that, of course, is the massive increase in unemployment, in that it means an increase in public expenditure, and the massive increase in defence expenditure, such as the £10,000 million-plus which the Government plan to spend on Trident and which they are attempting to foist on the people of Scotland, despite the fact that the vast majority of those people want nothing to do with it. Those are the priorities of public expenditure. [Interruption.] What is the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) laughing at? Does he not realise that the majority of people in Scotland want nothing to do with Trident? I have never seen him here before, but I put to him a question: can he point to any person ill Scotland, apart from these balloons on the Front Bench, who are supposed to be representing but in fact are misrepresenting the people of Scotland, who would rather £10,000 million be spent on Trident than on the National Health Service or local government services—housing, health, education, services for the elderly, sick, disabled and children? Local priorities for expenditure and the principle of local democracy are at stake. This Government pay lip-service to local democracy.
At the election the Government were rejected by over 70 per cent. of the people of Scotland. They received no mandate to impose their iniquitous policies on the Scottish people. A Scottish Assembly is the only way in which local government can be dealt with in Scotland, but some hon. Members will disagree with me about that. The Government are imposing over-centralisation so that the people of Stirling, Lothian, Glasgow and Kirkcaldy are victims of an over-centralised decision-making process at Westminster. English Tory Members, who have never even listened to my sweet words or those of any other Scottish Labour Member, are being dragooned into the Lobbies to follow like sheep the Prime Minister and the Tory Secretary of State for Scotland without knowing the need or the priorities of the Scottish people. Tory Members will determine the level of services in Scotland.
Local authorities were elected in Scotland with a better mandate than the Tory Members representing English constituencies, the Tory Secretary of State who represents only a tiny minority of the Scottish people, or the hon. Member for Stirling, who represents only a tiny minority of people in the Stirling district.
Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
Mr. Canavan: I shall give way, since the hon. Member for Stirling represents at least part of the gerrymandered constituency.
Mr. Forsyth: I do not know that there is a great difference between the leader of the council and the Secretary of State. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the leader of the district council, with his mandate, was quoted, prior to the general election, in the Stirling Observer as saying that if the Tories promised to cut the rates by 3p then he would cut the rates by 3p and steal their thunder. The Secretary of State is giving him a chance to honour that promise.
Mr. Canavan: I am sure that the leader of the Labour group on Stirling district council is capable of defending

657
himself. If Fallin, Plean, Cowie and Throsk had been in the Stirling constituency instead of being gerrymandered across the water by Sheriff Taylor, a Tory placeman, the hon. Member for Stirling would not be here to speak on behalf of the Tories in Stirling. We are in a ridiculous situation because the heir to the Marquess of Lothian is dictating, not just to the people of Lothian, but to the people of Bannockburn and to the other people of Stirling district. The Secretary of State laughs, because he and his family are quite well off. His family is aristocratic, like the Marquess of Lothian's family. It is ridiculous that Scotland should be ruled by a load of blue-blooded aristocrats who have no contact whatever with working-class people. Conservative Members laugh, but it is true. The son of the Viscount is telling us that we should vote for him tonight, and the son of the Marquess is defending what the son of the Viscount proposes. What sort of democracy is that? They have sent one of their placemen sheriffs to gerrymander a constituency to ensure the return of a Tory Member of Parliament who has spent much of his time in London local government and knows nothing at all about the people of Bannockburn, Gargunnock, Cambusbarron, St. Ninians, Raploch or anywhere else for that matter. He says that he is coming down here to represent their cause. Like hell — he is coming to misrepresent it.
Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about democracy and mandates, but has he noticed that there are more Scottish Conservative Members in the Chamber listening to him than Scottish Labour Members?
Mr. Canavan: I think that there is something wrong with the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. When it comes to the vote tonight we shall see, in all probability, what has often happened before. The majority of elected representatives from Scotland will vote against the motion, just as we have done many times before in the past four or five years. When we vote against Tory legislation we are outnumbered by Tory Members from south of the border who are drafted in at the last minute, who have not listened to the debate and who are being used as Lobby fodder. That is a sheer negation of democracy.
It is bad enough that the Secretary of State has no mandate from the people of Scotland, but the Government are now using the people of Scotland as guinea pigs for their Tory, anti-Socialist legislation. They used us as guinea pigs in the criminal justice legislation, by giving increased powers to the police of search and arrest. They used us as guinea pigs on local government legislation during the previous Parliament by taking powers away from the elected representatives of the people in local government and vesting more powers in the Secretary of State here, or in St. Andrew's house. Yet he has no mandate from the people of Scotland, The motion will only increase centralisation.
I appeal to those hon. Members who represent English consituencies and to enlightened Tory Members — if there are any, and if that is not a contradiction in terms —that if they listen to reason and believe in democracy, they should not go into the Lobby to vote for the motion out of prejudice and ignorance of the needs of the people of Stirling district, Lothian region, Glasgow and Kirkcaldy district. We are far more in touch with those people's
658
needs and far better able to articulate them than Tory Members. My friends in the council chambers in Stirling, Kirkcaldy, Glasgow and Edinburgh are even more capable than I am of articulating the needs of the local people, and have a far better mandate to try to bring about the necessary improvements on behalf of the people than the rest of us put together. Only with a Scottish parliament or legislative assembly shall we obtain the necessary legislative protection for our people, whether the legislation involves local government, the Health Service, or education. I appeal to all my Scottsh colleagues and colleagues from south of the border to accept the argument for Scottish devolution. If ever there were a case for it, here it is tonight. We have a Tory centralised Government who are dictating measures to the people of Scotland that are contrary to their needs and aspirations. Only by more devolution, more decentralisation and more home rule for the people of Scotland shall we see an improvement of our democratic processes. If we do not see that progress in the near future, we shall see an increased discrediting of whatever credibility is still left in this so-called mother of Parliaments.
10.15 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I believe in this unitary Parliament. I have sat through three full days of debate in this Chamber attempting to participate in the debates. I have been attempting to do what the electorate in my constituency sent me here to do, to express their voice and their views. The usual channels have been putting pressure on me not to speak this evening, but I believe that principle is important. It is important when a Back-Bench Member sits through three full days of debate waiting for an opportunity to speak. It would be quite wrong to give up merely because the usual channels suggested that one should.
Mr. George Foulkes: Get on with it.
Mr. Walker: The problems that brought these measures before us owe their origins to the black day when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had to go to the IMF, and when the then Secretary of State for Scotland was forced to introduce massive real cuts in local government expenditure. Central Government support for local authorities was likewise cut savagely.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman thought that the IMF was a furniture store.
Mr. Walker: The effect of that has been felt substantially throughout Scotland. The Labour Government of the day were fortunate in that the non-Socialist local authorities, which were the principal authorities at that time, continued the convention of spending only within the limits that central Government deemed sensible in the financial and economic circumstances of the time. Since then some Labour councils have tried to regain the losses that were incurred as a result of the cuts in spending that were imposed by their own party while in government.
The convention that then existed has been discarded deliberately and wilfully. In its place has come a ritual annual battle between Labour-controlled local authorities and central Government. If we examine closely the spending programmes of the authorities that are the subject of the motions on the Order Paper, especially Stirling, we

659
see that they have recovered, relative to many other Scottish authorities, much of the ground that they lost when the IMF cuts were imposed. They have improved their position substantially relative to other authorities.
The rates imposed by the Stirling authority impose massive burdens on the employment creation areas within the district. The local authority adjacent to the Stirling authority is the one which has control within my constituency. It was referred to by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). There is no doubt that we can see at first hand what the differences are between the two authorities.
In an earlier debate I described the high-spending and high-rating authorities as vampires that obtain their sustenance by sucking the lifeblood of others. Every penny increase in the rates represents a massive rate burden. In the Stirling district, for example, the burden falls on the university and the health boards and runs into many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The health care funds for health boards hospitals and patients are being filched by the same councillors who will march and demonstrate when Health Service expenditure problems occur in their areas. In effect, they protest and demonstrate in some cases against the results of their own action. Is that not the world of the vampire and the madhouse? First drain the lifeblood from another public body, and then demonstrate and protest when the victim has obvious health and fitness problems.
A district increase in rates can have a savage and debilitating effect on education and social work costs—another example of one public body imposing a cost burden on another. The ones who suffer are the children in the schools and those in need of help from social work depts.
I refer to an area where the comparisons between the two authorities are clear—council house rents. Over 50 per cent. of rents of all council house tenants are paid in part or in full by Government funds. One does not have to be a mathematician to realise that, if council rents were set at an economic level, the district council would have a substantial inflow of funds from the Government because the imposed increase of rent for those already in receipt of assistance—the poorer council house tenants—would be paid in full by the Government. Therefore, if one looks carefully at the rate poundage in Stirling district and compares it with Perth and Kinross, Stirling—
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to read out every word of his speech, although it was prepared by civil servants in the Scottish Office?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman will know that the use of notes is permitted during debates.
Mr. Walker: As I mentioned in a Scottish Grand Committee debate, I use only my own briefs, not those of other people.
I was referring to rate poundages. For Stirling district it is 40p and for Perth and Kinross it is 14·5p. Further east in Angus, which is the other district that covers my constituency, it is 15·5p. One can see that Stirling is a high-spending local authority.
I shall cite one final example to show what I mean. Before the general election, Councillor Michael Connarty distributed leaflets at meetings in my constituency that
660
were printed by the district council. I invite him to return as often as he likes to my constituency to distribute leaflets. I am sad that the authority, and therefore the ratepayers of Stirling, had to pay for them. Those leaflets helped me substantially in my battle at the general election and in no small measure contributed to the fact that over 50 per cent. of the electorate voted for me, the Conservative. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Falkirk, West to suggest that those of us who talked about Trident and nuclear-free zones—that is what the leaflets were about—had no impact on the electorate. It had a massive impact on the electorate in my constituency of Tayside, North.
10.23 pm
Mr. Ancram: After a full debate, it is hardly for me to make detailed comments on the speeches, but I shall refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) who, after all, whatever the view of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on mandates, has at least been mandated directly by the people of Stirling to speak on his behalf. I hope that the House listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. He made clear the problems that were faced by the ratepayers of Stirling.
One point that was in a sense a new one was made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). He talked of the comparitors that had been used in this case and mentioned that they had been changed. It is only right that I should give him some explanation for that. They were changed in 1982–83 and are now based on a systematic method that is based on the need to spend which, as I said earlier, is the fair method of assessing. That is why the change was made.
Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister concede that if, in the event of experience, the basis that he is choosing proves wrong—academic opinion seems to suggest it—and he changes comparitors again he he will consult local authorities to get their view on what the need to spend involves and not impose systems on local authorities as has been the case in the past?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that there has been quite an industry studying comparitors used by the Secretary of State. There has been much comment on them already today.
Stirling district complained that its expenditure per head, of £68·89, was being compared with authorities with expenditure of £63·73 per head. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in Stirling district's submission, it suggested other comparitor authorities but they have lower average expenditure per head at £59·92. Moreover, two of them had a different range of functions.
Had Stirling gone for the comparitor that it suggested we should have examined, the gap between its expenditure per head and the average would not have been £3·81 but £8·97. Its position would have been a lot worse than it is now. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some idea that the choice of comparators is not taken lightly. It is based, as far as possible, on an assessment of need to spend in comparison with other authorities.
The Opposition's case has not in any way answered the original points that I made. On its guideline excess of 29·5 per cent., Stirling was well above the average for district councils of 21·8 per cent. Its expenditure per head was

661
some £3 over the district average and, last year, despite the fact that the Secretary of State made it clear that he was giving Stirling time to adjust and expected further substantial expenditure reductions this year, the reductions that it made have been utterly insignificant. For that reason, its expenditure is excessive and unreasonable, and I ask the House to support the motion.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 138.

Division No. 40]

[10.27 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Ancram, Michael

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hunter, Andrew

Bright, Graham

Jackson, Robert

Bruinvels, Peter

Jessel, Toby

Bulmer, Esmond

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Chapman, Sydney

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Key, Robert

Colvin, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Cope, John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Corrie, John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Crouch, David

Knowles, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lawler, Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Lee, John (Pendle)

Dover, Denshore

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Dunn, Robert

Lightbown, David

Eggar, Tim

Lilley, Peter

Evennett, David

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Eyre, Reginald

Lord, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Lyell, Nicholas

Farr, John

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Favell, Anthony

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Fletcher, Alexander

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Fookes, Miss Janet

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

Forth, Eric

McQuarrie, Albert

Freeman, Roger

Major, John

Gale, Roger

Malins, Humfrey

Galley, Roy

Malone, Gerald

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Maples, John

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maude, Francis

Goodlad, Alastair

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gorst, John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Gower, Sir Raymond

Mellor, David

Grant, Sir Anthony

Merchant, Piers

Gregory, Conal

Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Ground, Patrick

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Miscampbell, Norman

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Hanley, Jeremy

Moate, Roger

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Monro, Sir Hector

Harvey, Robert

Montgomery, Fergus

Haselhurst, Alan

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Murphy, Christopher

Hawksley, Warren

Neale, Gerrard

Hayward, Robert

Needham, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nelson, Anthony

Heddle, John

Neubert, Michael

Henderson, Barry

Norris, Steven

Hickmet, Richard

Ottaway, Richard

Hicks, Robert

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Hirst, Michael

Pawsey, James

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Pink, R. Bonner

Holt, Richard

Pollock, Alexander

Howard, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

662

Powley, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Price, Sir David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Raffan, Keith

Terlezki, Stefan

Rathbone, Tim

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Renton, Tim

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Thornton, Malcolm

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tracey, Richard

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Trippier, David

Ryder, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Viggers, Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sims, Roger

Walden, George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Speller, Tony

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Spence, John

Warren, Kenneth

Spencer, D.

Watts, John

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Squire, Robin

Wheeler, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Whitfield, John

Stanley, John

Wilkinson, John

Stern, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Wood, Timothy

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Yeo, Tim

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sumberg, David

Mr. Ian Lang and

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mr. Archie Hamilton.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Dixon, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dormand, Jack

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dubs, Alfred

Ashton, Joe

Duffy, A. E. P.

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Eadie, Alex

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

Barnett, Guy

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Barron, Kevin

Ewing, Harry

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Fatchett, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bermingham, Gerald

Fisher, Mark

Bidwell, Sydney

Flannery, Martin

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Foster, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Foulkes, George

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

George, Bruce

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

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Godman, Dr Norman

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Golding, John

Bruce, Malcolm

Gould, Bryan

Caborn, Richard

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Campbell, Ian

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Canavan, Dennis

Hardy, Peter

Clarke, Thomas

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cohen, Harry

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Coleman, Donald

Heffer, Eric S.

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin

Hoyle, Douglas

Cowans, Harry

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Craigen, J. M.

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Crowther, Stan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kennedy, Charles

Dalyell, Tarn

Kirkwood, Archibald

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Lambie, David

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Lamond, James

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

Leadbitter, Ted

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Dewar, Donald

Litherland, Robert

663

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

McCartney, Hugh

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Robertson, George

McGuire, Michael

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Sedgemore, Brian

McWilliam, John

Sheerman, Barry

Madden, Max

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Marek, DrJohn

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Skinner, Dennis

Martin, Michael

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

Maxton, John

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Meacher, Michael

Soley, Clive

Michie, William

Stott, Roger

Mikardo, Ian

Strang, Gavin

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Straw, Jack

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Thompsor, J. (Wansbeck)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Tinn, Jamos

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Nellist, David

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wareing, Robert

O'Neill, Martin

Welsh, Michael

Park, George

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Patchett, Terry

Wilson, Gordon

Pavitt, Laurie

Winnick, David

Pike, Peter

Woodall, Alec

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Randall, Stuart

Redmond, M.

Tellers for the Noes:

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Mr. Norman Hogg and

Richardson, Ms Jo

Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Reduction (Stirling District) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Rates (Kirkcaldy District)
10.39 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the Rate Reduction (Kirkcaldy District) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
The budget return submitted by Kirkcaldy district council and certified as correct by its authority showed that the authority was budgeting to spend 28·9 per cent. above its guideline, significantly more than the district average of 21·8 per cent. Its expenditure per head was above the average of comparator authorities. In addition, it had the highest cumulative rate increase of any authority since 1978–79—220 per cent.—in effect, more than trebling the rate.
Having taken all aspects of Kirkcaldy's expenditure plans into account, the Secretary of State decided to initiate selective action. The district council only then notified the Scottish Office that it wished to change its budget return and transfer funds from its repairs and renewal fund to offset the net expenditure total. Even when that had been done, the excess over guidelines was 25 per cent.—still noticeably above the average.
There was further confusion about the figures submitted by the council as the return included certain housing expenditure, contrary to the advice of the Scottish Development Department. I should make it clear that this had no substantive effect on the reasons for deciding to take selective action, but it led to the clarification that I shall explain.
I met representatives of the council on 23 June, and it proved possible to clear up a number of these matters. In particular, the council representatives agreed that, as a result of returning that expenditure to the housing revenue account and making compensating savings, it would be possible to return £200,000 to the ratepayers. They further agreed that the provision made for inflation when the council's budget was set had proved to be too high. A provision of 8 per cent. had been built into the budget for pay awards, whereas recent awards had been around 5 per cent. and below. The overall inflation provision was 11·8 per cent. The council representatives did not dispute that that had turned out to be far too high. Indeed, they accepted that significant savings could be made in that area and that about £375,000 was available for return to the ratepayers.
The two sums that the council representatives agreed could be returned to the ratepayers amounted together to the equivalent of 1·5p on the rates. On our calculations, the council could comfortably return 2p in the pound to the ratepayers on those two grounds alone. The Secretary of State gave the council the opportunity to return to the ratepayers the savings that its representatives accepted could be made, but I am sorry to say that, following what I felt was a very constructive meeting with the council, the council failed to take that opportunity. Had it taken the reasonable course, instead of choosing the political gesture, there would have been no need for this debate, but the council's inexplicable action left the Secretary of State with no alternative but to lay a report before the House to obtain its approval so that the ratepayers of Kirkcaldy could have the rate reduction to which I believe that they are entitled. I ask for the support of the House.
10.43 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I regret that the debate on the fourth report comes so late at night. We have had a long day of Scottish business. We come to this report last not because it is in any sense the least important but merely because one of the reports had to be last just as one had to be first.
In a sense, Kirkcaldy is the most curious case of all. There has undoubtedly been tension for a long time between central Government and the authorities of Lothian, Stirling and Glasgow. Moreover, the finances of Glasgow tend to be examined in great detail merely because it is such a large authority. Until a month or two ago I should certainly not have nominated Kirkcaldy as an authority likely to attract the Secretary of State's displeasure.
When one considers the statistics on how the Kirkcaldy authority has performed in the past year or two, the situation becomes curiouser and curiouser. I take a simple example. The current rate poundage in Kirkcaldy is 29p—substantially below the average of 35p for district councils in Scotland.
Neither the Secretary of State nor on this occasion the Under-Secretary can claim that this is an area in which the ratepayer has been systematically pillaged or victimised. As anybody who has listened to these debates will know, even in the areas where such a plea has been made by the Government, the facts have been very different from those represented. The principal villain has been the right hon. Gentleman, as we have been able to prove to our satisfaction in the past few hours.
There is no case on the ground of rate poundage for moving against the Kirkcaldy district council, but there are the guidelines. Although I wish to give full weight to the arguments on Kirkcaldy's behalf, I do not want to weary the House by going through the arguments about the validity of the guideline exercise. Even if we take the present excess guideline as being a fair test—and that is being charitable in the extreme, or to the point of folly, to the Government's position—a substantial number of our district councils have a larger excess over guidelines, and they have not been victimised or put on the hit list, such as Ettrick and Lauderdale, Dunfermline, Aberdeen, Comnock and Doon Valley, to mention a few.
Kirkcaldy has not been peculiarly victimised, but we can make out a case for it. In 1982–83, its guidelines were £8·36 million, which were the same as the guidelines for the year before. There has been no adjustment for inflation, or any arising from rising costs. That is why that gap has opened. The system has been manipulated to produce that gap, which has allowed the Secretary of State to pick and choose his victims as he feels it to be appropriate.
Nobody should be hit, as I have pointed out before. No Labour Member believes that such buck shot, random, punitive action is justified or necessary. However, let us assume that such an operation has to be put in hand. It is extraordinary to see the way in which Kirkcaldy has been picked. Let us compare it with Kyle and Carrick district council. I do so for a number of reasons. First, it is Labour controlled, so I cannot be accused of picking a Tory council to make a point against the Tories and suggest that it is straight political favouritism.
This is an interesting example because it includes the Secretary of State for Scotland's constituency and should
666
also be a useful example. It might be argued that the two areas are not comparable because Kirkcaldy is on the east coast and Kyle and Carrick is on the west coast, and the former is more of an industrial area than the latter. However, I do not think that the Under-Secretary will object to this example because it is one of the comparable local authorities that he has picked, as he is bound to do to support his arguments for this punitive measure.
Let us start with expenditure per head. One of the district councils spends £74·75 per head, and the other £66·55. Kyle and Carrick is not on the hit list, so it must be the one spending less per head—but not a bit of it. Kyle and Carrick spends considerably more than Kirkcaldy, but it is not on the hit list. It may be argued that there are some peculiar distorting factors in the individual budgets that make up the total. However, the rating review shows that Kyle and Carrick's planned expenditure on libraries, leisure and recreation, burials and cremations, all of which are central to the functions covered by the motion, is more per head of the population than that of Kirkcaldy. For reasons that are difficult to fathom, the council which, in terms of the Secretary of State's test, should have a more acceptable record is on the hit list and the other is not. We could pile anomaly upon anomaly, complication upon complication but I shall not do that.
In cash terms, the rate levy in Kirkcaldy amounts to about £244 per head of the population. If one takes the nine comparable authorities—comparable in population terms—they include the four that the Under-Secretary himself took for his comparability exercise and only two have a lower figure per head than Kirkcaldy. That is another test that could be applied and there are many others. The whole situation has become a farce, and rather an undignified one.
I hope that no one in Kirkcaldy will resent it if I say that they find themselves surprised as well as offended to be in the firing line in such a way. I do not want to labour the protest, but I find it extraordinary that we should be in such a situation. On 22 June the Prime Minister said;
"In recent years the expenditure of local authorities has increased enormously."—[Official Report, 22 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 56.]
I am not an expert on the English figures, but we have heard a good deal about the Scottish figures this evening and there is no substance whatever in that claim. It is just not so.
The whole intellectual basis on which the persecution has been mounted is cut away. When the Secretary of State opened an earlier debate we heard a superb example of what I call the "nevertheless" principle. He started off by saying that the Government did not wish to interfere in local democracy, nevertheless. He actually said "but", but it is still the "nevertheless" principle. It is always based on a non sequitur. It is a statement not of faith but of prejudice. That is what is happening in the measures before us.
The Secretary of State talks about the poor ratepayers, yet he is the person who has brought their troubles upon them. He says that the measure is necessary because local authority spending is out of control, but their record is infinitely better than that of his Government and Department. He claims that the Government do not wish to interfere in local democracy, yet that is what he is doing, and doing in the most objectionable, offensive and

667
radical way that we have seen in the history of negotiations and relationships between local government and central Government in Scotland.
I am convinced that there is no justification in what is being done to Kirkcaldy district council and the House should treat the measure with the contempt and derision that it deserves.
10.52 pm
Mr. Barry Henderson: After about seven hours of debate many major issues have been thoroughly debated and I shall not rehearse them. They include the constitutional position, and the need for Government to accept their responsibility towards the ratepayers has been well explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in introducing the first debate.
If we do not control the excessive and unreasonable expenditure of a few local authorities, all the others will suffer a reduction in what is available for them, even though they may have been extremely prudent. That is a major reason why I rise to support the measures this evening.
During the period when Kirkcaldy district council had a number of people from that area within my constituency I always enjoyed a good and fair relationship with its councillors and officials. I have no complaint about the relations between the Member of Parliament and the council during that period. But Kirkcaldy district council is not on such good ground as it has argued when lobbying Members of Parliament in talking about democratic rights. When the Labour party took over complete control at the last district council elections it was that council that ruthlessly expelled all its opponents from the council's committees and gave no opportunity for any but the Socialist view to be heard.
Many hon. Members will remember a debate in Committee when we considered whether Parliament should lay down the constitution of the membership of committees of councils to deal with such abuse. Hon. Member after hon. Member rose to condemn what Kirkcaldy had done. No one thought that what it had done was right, although we did not go to the extreme of legislating. We felt that good sense should prevail.
There is absolutely no doubt that Kirkcaldy district could have easily returned 2p to the ratepayers, and it knows that. It is clearly on the record that in the meeting between my hon. Friend the Minister and the council, the provision made for inflation proved to be too high—a sum of £375,000. The council's representatives said that they were prepared to return that sum, together with the £200,000 saved on housing expenditure, to the ratepayers. The only difference between my hon. Friend and the council was not that that sum was available to return to the ratepayers, but that the council wanted to return it next year rather than this year. A suspicious person might wonder if there was any relationship between that and the coming district council elections next May.
There are also other areas in which the council could reasonably have been asked to look after, expenditure. The increase in expenditure on recreation and leisure alone was more than the total reductions for which the Secretary of State was looking in the whole of the council's budget. It has allowed every staff increase requested at any time, except staff increases required for processing the sale of council houses that tenants have the right to buy. Its rates
668
have increased by 222 per cent. in six years—twice as much as all the other districts in Scotland, including Socialist high spenders.
Before there was full Socialist control, Kirkcaldy district council had one of the lowest rates in Scotland. It certainly had the lowest rate in Fife.
Mr. Dewar: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that Kirkcaldy is still well below the district council average for Scotland? The rate poundage increase for Kirkcaldy and the average for all district councils is almost exactly the same — to be specific, 19p and 20p. The hon. Gentleman's highly coloured, penny-dreadful argument does not stand up to examination.
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cut large chunks from my speech in the interests of all hon. Members. I cut the part that dealt with the special advantages enjoyed by Kirkcaldy district council. One is the considerable rating valuation increase that occurred in Glenrothes. The regional council has substantial additional expenditure because of the growth of Glenrothes, but the district council gains largely from the valuation increases there without having the same increase in expenditure that other local authorities might have had. That is among the reasons why Kirkcaldy had a low rate until the Socialist administration took control. From that point in 1980–81, the rate has risen from 13·5p to 29p—an increase of 115 per cent. Its neighbour, north-east Fife district council, increased its rate by only 15 per cent. during the same period.
The scale of the increase is dramatic. There is no reason why the rates should have increased on that scale. For those reasons I shall support the motion in the interests of the ratepayers of Kirkcaldy.
11 pm
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) made a similar point with reference to north-east Fife district council at Question Time on 13 July when he said, much as he said tonight, that there was a substantial increase in the rates subsequent to the Tories losing power a few years ago, with the incoming Labour authority, in my view quite properly, seeking to undo the enormous damage that had been done to services under the Tory administration.
For the hon. Gentleman to compare north-east Fife with Kirkcaldy is quite wrong. Not even the Government choose to regard north-east Fife as a comparable authority. Completely different factors operate in the two areas. The complete withdrawal of the housing support grant from Kirkcaldy has meant the loss of about £7 million, whereas a rural authority like north-east Fife suffers no such adverse effect. It was absurd and dishonest of the hon. Gentleman to attempt to compare the record of north-east Fife with that of Kirkcaldy.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) say that he found this measure the most curious of those we have been debating tonight, and he gave some of his reasons for that view. Before dealing with those, I must mention the question of inflation, a subject raised when the district council met the Minister. It is true that the inflation provision in the budget prepared by Kirkcaldy district for 1983–84 provided for an 8 per cent. inflation rate for pay and about 8 per cent. per annum for other costs.

669
It is no good denying that pay awards are currently coming in at rates somewhat lower than that. However, awards are yet to be negotiated in the latter part of the year, and then inflation will be substantially higher than it is now. The estimates of inflation are running at about 8 per cent. 12 months from now, so it may not be far out. There is no certainty about the level of pay awards to come or about the eventual level of inflation increase. On their own admission the Government agree that in the coming months inflation will go steadily up.
In any case, it has always been the council's policy that inflation is a provision in the budget to be spent only as required because of rising costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden pointed out that when assessing the guidelines, the Government for the past two years have arbitrarily fixed them at the same figures, regardless of any possibility of increased costs.
The district council submitted to the Secretary of State a revised budget form, POBE, for 1983–84 reducing the relevant expenditure by £330,000, the equivalent of a penny rate, and up to a few moments ago the council had had no indication from the Scottish Office that the Department was not prepared to accept that. Scottish Office officials are listening to me saying that only now does the council realising that the Government want their full pound of flesh, 2p in the pound. The council has conceded 1p, but that is not enough, and it would have saved a great deal of time if the Government had said "We realise that Kirkcaldy district council has come some way towards us"—Government spokesmen have said that the guidelines are only a rough and ready measure, not a hard and fast rule—"and has shown, while not agreeing with us, that it realises that the Government have some rights in these matters".
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden gave some figures. When one studies the figures placed in the Library by the Government one sees, taking a succession of yardsticks by which to measure the profligacy or otherwise of Kirkcaldy, that there are no grounds—or, at least, hardly any grounds—for treating Kirkcaldy in this way. For instance, there are at least seven district councils that have a worse record, to use the jargon of the Government, of expenditure over the Government's guidelines, yet Kirkcaldy is singled out for exceptional and draconian treatment.
The second point is that in the past five years, at least 10 other district councils have spent more per head of the population than Kirkcaldy. The third fact is that Kirkcaldy is 30th in the league of comparisons of increased expenditure this year compared to that of 1982–83. I am quoting these figures from the official statistics in the Library.
The fourth fact is that the global changes in expenditure over a five-year period, despite what the Minister has said, showed that at least 12 other district councils have a worse record than Kirkcaldy.
The fifth fact is that at least 19 district councils have a higher rate poundage then Kirkcaldy. That is the picture shown by the Government's figures.
The story is even stranger than that. The Kirkcaldy district council is spending, not £10·78 million, but £10·45 million—a figure accepted by the Government—so its position should become much more acceptable to the
670
Government than that of at least a score of other district councils in Scotland. I shall deal with that at greater length later.
The point has been made, and I think that it is worth repeating, that when the Government first took office in 1979, they pledged that they would devolve more power to local authorities from the centre, but since then the opposite has happened in a variety of ways. Local authorities, of all political persuasions, are extremely disturbed at the increased centralisation of decision-making and the increased feeling that local authorities must be subservient agents of central Government.
I shall give examples of how that has developed. As has been said many times before, the rate support grant has been reduced substantially as a proportion of the money available to local authorities—from 75 per cent. in 1975–76 to 61·7 per cent. in 1983–84. In addition there is the continued deflation of the expenditure base for calculating RSG. So local authorities have been enormously disadvantaged by the Government's manipulation of the rate support grant.
A further example is the alteration in the methods of computing and distributing rate support grant. Kirkcaldy district has made another point, that the Government have provided for the derating of outdoor industrial plant and machinery which means a loss of rateable resources without any compensatory payment to the local authority, which means inevitably higher rates for the rest of the community.
Another factor is the phasing out of the housing support grant—housing subsidy as it was known. In 1980–81 Kirkcaldy district council received housing support grant of nearly £7 million. In 1983–84, it is nil. So the council had to find that money by one means or another as a direct consequence, not of its own profligacy, but of a deliberate policy of this Government.
Another factor is the limitation of rate contributions to the housing revenue account. For Kirkcaldy district, that meant £1·75 million, the equivalent of a 4½p rate. Those are a few examples of how local authorities have been whiplashed by the Government in a succession of deliberate policy decisions. Now the Government have imposed rate levels that are based on arbitrary judgments and opinions as to what constitutes excessive and unreasonable expenditure. The little man in New St. Andrew's House is sitting there deciding what is unreasonable and unfair expenditure in places such as Kirkcaldy, Stirling, and elsewhere. That is an impossible, dictatorial imposition and it has no rational basis.
The Secretary of State, in his letter of 5 May, decreed that Kirkcaldy district council had indulged in, and was continuing to indulge in, excessive and unreasonable expenditure. He has taken powers to exercise that judgment made by the little guy in New St. Andrew's House and to penalise councils which dare to question it. He, the Secretary of State for Scotland, decreed that Kirkcaldy district must reduce its rates by 3p in the pound. That means cutting its proposed expenditure for 1983–84 by about £1 million.
I have been through the figures with the Kirkcaldy district time and again. Its members say to me, "Please, Willie, ask the Secretary of State to tell us what to cut." We have challenged the district Tory councillors to tell us what services they will cut. The Under-Secretary's hit man in Kirkcaldy district is Councillor Mason, the hon. Gentleman's paid hack. He is the guy who is carrying the

671
coat tails. That is one of the reasons why Kirkcaldy district is singled out for this unfair treatment. That man Mason is telling the Government that Kirkcaldy council should be clobbered because of the allegedly undemocratic way in which the newly elected Labour-controlled council a few years ago got rid of the Tories and others on the committees. I made my view known on that, but that is no reason why the vendetta should now be carried to the extent of threatening Kirkcaldy district with penal measures if it does not reduce the rates in accordance with the edict from New St. Andrew's House.
The Minister said earlier that he does not intend to tell local authorities how to save the money, but presumably he has made a judgment about where or how they are wasting it. He has come to a global figure of 3p in the pound. Why was it not 4p, or 2p, or 2½p? Someone must have looked at the expenditure item by item, and decided that certain items could be cut out, and arrived at the global figure of 3p. No one will ever know how that 3p was arrived at. Moreover, in his letter of 23 June he said, suddenly, that it could be 2p. How was that figure reached? Was it just an arbitrary decision made in New St. Andrew's House, following representations by Kirkcaldy district?
At the meeting of 23 June the Minister said that in taking his action he had regard to three factors. The first was the council's excess over guidelines, compared with other district councils. The second was the level of expenditure per head planned for 1983–84, compared with comparable authorities. The third was the substantial increase in the council's rate poundage, both since 1982 and over the longer period from 1978–79.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to the rate poundage, as did the hon. Member for Fife, North-East. In the last three years, under the Labour-controlled council, the rate poundage in Kirkcaldy increased from 13·5p in 1980–81 to 29p in 1983–84. That decision was deliberately taken by a democratically elected Labour-controlled council to repair the ravages of the previous Tory administration. That is what democratic local government is about.
Between 1980–81 and 1983–84, Kirkcaldy's rate poundage was less in each year than the average for all Scottish district councils. Kirkcaldy is not out of line with the general run of rate poundages in Scotland. The Kirkcaldy district council's average rate poundage per year over the last six years is 18·1p, whereas the average for all district councils is 25·2p. On that count Kirkcaldy comes out well.
The average rate poundage over the same six years in what the Government call "closely comparable" district councils — Cunninghame, West Lothian, Kyle and Carrick, Kilmarnock and Dunfermline—is 22·8p. There is little evidence, whatever yardstick one uses, to allege that Kirkcaldy district is a profligate, irresponsible local council.
The Minister's second charge against Kirkcaldy is that the level of expenditure per head planned for 1983–84 compares unfavourably with similar authorities. The average over the last six years in Kirkcaldy is £59·42 per head, against £59·01 in other comparable authorities.
At the meeting in June the Minister referred specifically to the expenditure per head planned for 1983–84. The Minister's assertion is not borne out by the facts. The figure for Kirkcaldy was £62·56, for Cunninghame £64·76, for Kilmarnock £63·90 and for Kyle and Carrick
672
£74·76. The average for all closely comparable district councils was £61·95. The most closely comparable authority to Kirkcaldy is Cunninghame because it also has a new town.
The Minister's third charge against Kirkcaldy is that its proposed expenditure far exceeds the guidelines. Enough has been said to condemn guidelines as having no statutory authority. Guidelines are merely suggested limits for local authority expenditure. They are not the basis on which to build global expenditure for rate support grant purposes.
The guideline for Kirkcaldy for 1982–83 was £9 million. Arbitrarily, the Government reduced that to £8·36 million. No reason was given for that figure. Similarly, for the next year — 1983–84 — the guideline of £9·605 million was arbritrarily reduced to the same figure as for the previous year, £8·36 million. No provision whatever was made for inflation. The local authority just had to meet that out of what it could get from the rates. In 1982–83, Kirkcaldy's cash expenditure was £9·26 million, and in 1983–84, it was £10·78 million. That figure has now been revised to £10·45 million, so that the increase over the guidelines is 25 per cent., which compares favourably with the district council average for Scotland of 21·8 per cent.
However, there are no figures for the so-called five comparable local authorities. If they are comparable with Kirkcaldy, they should have comparable guidelines. Perhaps the Minister will say whether they do have comparable guidelines. Appendix A in the Minister's original communication does not say that. But in any case, as a Scottish Office witness said at the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments:
"the guidelines are indicative, not definitive, and in no way mandatory."
Therefore, I doubt whether the Minister has any legal status in this. Kirkcaldy district council might challenge the Government about whether they can deal with Kirkcaldy or any other authority in a matter for which there is no statutory basis. In 1983–84, 62 out of the 65 local authorities in Scotland exceeded those guidelines. Only three out of the 65 managed—and then only just—to keep within them. That shows that there is something undeniably wrong with the guidelines.
Other hon. Members will probably get a document from the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. It has no political axe to grind, and is concerned only to maintain and foster a healthy democratic system of local government throughout the United Kingdom. The society represents all authorities in the United Kingdom. It put forward a list of 11 principles and objectives as essential foundations to effective and healthy local government. Hon. Members will be gratified to know that I do not intend to quote all 11, but I shall cite four of them. The third principle states:
"Individual local authorities should have the freedom, and should be encouraged, to innovate and undertake new initiatives in responding to the needs of their inhabitants within their democratic mandate. In furtherance of this objective, local authorities should continue to have a general power to incur expenditure in the interests of their inhabitants."
That is precisely the sort of power that is being denied those authorities tonight. The fifth principle states:
"The total financial resources available to local authorities should be sufficient to enable them to perform their functions adequately."
Again, that principle will he denied to local authorities both tonight and, in future, by the Government.
The sixth principle states:

673
"Local authorities' financial resources should include independent sources of revenue whose level can be fixed at the discretion of the individual authority."
The principle says that the fixing of the level should be at the discretion not of the central Government or of the Scottish Office, but of the individual democratically elected local authority.
The eighth principle is that the
"system of local government should ensure that individual local authorities are fully accountable to their electorates and local taxpayers for their expenditure decisions."
They are clear and sound principles that are being undermined by the Government.
Local government at all levels throughout the United Kingdom has seldom been so demoralised as it is now. It has seldom felt so threatened by the ever-increasing and malevolent interference by central Government. Local councillors and their officials feel increasingly that local government is becoming a mere rubber-stamping agent of a central Government who are hell-bent on regarding almost every service that is provided by local government or central Government as a profit-making opportunity for greedy and often unscrupulous speculators. The story is the same in housing, health, education and in almost every other sector.
Local authority services are being increasingly regarded as fair game for the gravy-train camp followers of the Tory party. The local authorities that dare to resist these pernicious pressures from central Government will be either whipped into line, as is happening tonight, or abolished, as in the case of London, and as will happen to the metropolitan boroughs if the Government have their way. All local authorities are under threat if they do not toe the line of this increasingly dictatorial Government, who have no mandate in Scotland.
11.27 pm
Mr. Ancram: If there were any truth in the closing sentences of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), and if he regards the motion as an entirely politically motivated action, is it not surprising that so many councils which fit his description have not had selective action taken against them? Only four councils of the many councils in Scotland have had selective action taken against them, which shows the care with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his assessment of what council spending was excessive and unreasonable.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) answered the Minister's question. He said that if action was not taken against the authorities named in the motions, other authorities might feel brave and emulate the decisions that the named authorities have taken. In other words, the Government have set out deliberately to use these authorities, including Kirkcaldy, to frighten off other authorities.
Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that in taking selective action against authorities whose spending is obviously unreasonable we are setting an example to other authorities not to spend in the same way, that is a purpose that I hope will be achieved by this action.
Mr. Henderson: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to mis-paraphrase me. I said that it was important
674
that other authorities that are more careful in their spending should not be hit because of the wild overspending of a relatively few authorities.
Mr. Ancram: That also is a valid point.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked why Kyle and Carrick had not been treated in the same way.
Mr. Dewar: I do not want it to be.
Mr. Ancram: In that case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is relieved that it is not. However, he asked why it had not been treated in the same way. I had hoped that at the end of this lengthy day the one message that I had put across was that there is not one single criterion for taking action. Balanced criteria have to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman's argument about expenditure per head in Kyle and Carrick may be valid. Kyle and Carrick's budget excess was below the district average. On the various balances of criteria, if he thinks about it, Kyle and Carrick would not have been a sufficient candidate for such action. He must realise that in the case of Kirkcaldy, just as in the other cases that we have discussed, a balance of criteria was carefully examined before any decision to take selective action was taken by my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) gave a good and reasoned breakdown of the spending pattern in a council such as Kirkcaldy that can lead to excessive and unreasonalbe expenditure. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) raised many questions. I am sure that the House will not wish me to deal with all of them. If there are any that I have missed, perhaps he will write to me about them. He referred to the inflation provision. I said that it was at a rate of 8 per cent. for pay awards, which he agreed with, but the overall inflation provision was 11·8 per cent. I am sure that he will agree that that is a high figure in comparison not only with the present rate of inflation—after all, we are one third of the way through the financial year—but with the projected rate of inflation. In terms of the budget expenditure, which my right hon. Friend looks at, if provision for inflation at that high rate is not needed, it should be returned to the ratepayers and if it is used in any other way, it becomes expenditure and should be assessed as part of the relevant expenditure for the purpose of assessing excess over guidelines. Therefore, the Government have rightly taken that into account.
The hon. Gentleman said, to my surprise, that tonight Kirkcaldy district council learnt for the first time that we were asking for 2p from it. When the representatives came to see me, they knew full well that they were entitled, if they wished, to come back to me. That was made clear before they left. Four days later when my right hon. Friend announced that he was reducing the demand on the council from 3p to 2p and that it had until 6 July to say whether it would accept that, it could have been in no doubt as to what the position was. The suggestion that it was not told until tonight is remarkable. In the hon. Gentleman's analyses, he seemed to miss the point that in Kirkcaldy's case, as in the case of all the other districts against which we have taken selective action, a balance of criteria, not one single criterion, must be taken into account when making comparisons with comparative authorities.
My right hon. Friend and I considered the representations that were made to us about Kirkcaldy. In the light of those representations, a reduction was made

675
from 3p to 2p. For the reasons that I gave, and as there is still an excess on the guidelines over the above the district average, expenditure per head is still also above the average of comparative authorities, and there has been the highest cumulative rate increase since 1978–79, excessive and unreasonable expenditure is being incurred by the council. I ask the House to support the report.
Question put:
The House proceeded to a Division
Mr. Lang and Mr. Garel-Jones were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
Resolved,
That the Rate Reduction (Kirkcaldy District) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day

  Medical Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.36 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has an unprecedented legislative history, as do the other two Bills that we shall consider today. All three are identical to Bills that fell at the dissolution of the previous Parliament. At that point, they had completed all or most of their stages in another place and they had all been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation &c. Bills, which had duly reported.
  When the three Bills were introduced in another place, it was wisely resolved that in those special circumstances they should not be referred to the Committee, notwithstanding Standing Orders. I emphasise that these Bills are identical to those which were considered by that Committee in the previous Parliament only a few weeks ago.
  It is a happy custom to thank the members of the Joint Committee for ensuring that consolidation Bills are in proper form when they come here. I should like to express our thanks to the Committee in respect of this and the other Bills that we shall consider today. I hope that, subject to the technical amendments, the House will think it right to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  11.38 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: The Opposition have no points to make on any of the three Bills. We also should like to thank the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c. Bills for its work. It is an unenviable task. We welcome the consolidation as making the law more accessible and less complicated. We look forward to more consolidation measures.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Medical Bill [Lords]
    Clause 40

      APPEALS
      The Solicitor General: I beg to move amendment No. 1 in page 32, line 43, leave out `(5)' and insert `(2)'.
      This is little more than a printing correction Clause 40(3) refers erroneously to section 39(5). As hon. Members can see, there is no subsection (5) in clause 39, and the reference should be to section 39(2).
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 41 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      TRANSITIONAL AND SAVING PROVISIONS
      The Solicitor General: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 64, line 17, after 'in', insert 'the repeals made by'.
      Paragraph 5 of schedule 6 is a transitional provision intended to ensure that existing entries on the register of medical practitioners are not affected by the repeal in this consolidation of the enactments under which they were made. Unfortunately, as it stands, paragraph 5 could be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of the Bill on suspension and striking off could not be applied to any practitioner registered under the enactments being consolidated, which would be absurd. The addition of the words "the repeals made by" avoids that possibility.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The Solicitor General: I beg to move amendment No. 3 in page 67, line 29, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'the 1956 Act'.
      This is to correct a mistake. Paragraph 24 of schedule 6 is another transitional provision, its purpose being to allow continued reliance upon certain provisions of the Medical Act 1956 notwithstanding that they have been repealed —I should add, repealed not by this Bill but by the Medical Act 1978. Part of its operation depends upon a registered medical practitioner's being enabled to satisfy the General Medical Council of matters specified in section 22(2) of the 1956 Act and not, as paragraph 24(2) of the schedule erroneously says at present, in clause 22(2) of this Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedule 7 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Car Tax Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is strict consolidation, bringing together the law relating to car tax. It was originally provided for in the Finance Act 1972, but there have been several amendments in subsequent Finance Acts and in other Acts and statutory instruments. The time is now ripe for consolidation.
  11.44 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: I refer the House to the comments that I made on the Medical Bill [Lords].
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  Value Added Tax Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.47 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As it stands, the Bill is strict consolidation and brings together the law on value added tax.. This was first provided for in the Finance Act 1972 but there have been amendments in every subsequent Finance Act, in the legislation relating to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and in numerous statutory instruments made under powers contained in the 1972 Act. It is, therefore, an appropriate time for consolidation.
  This is also the appropriate time to welcome the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to the Opposition Front Bench, and I do so very warmly.
  I should mention now that an amendment will be required in Committee to take account of the recently made Value Added Tax (Works of Art, Etc.) Order 1983.
  Subject to that, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

  Value Added Tax Bill [Lords]
    Schedule 6
      EXEMPTIONS
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 72, line 7, at end add—

      'GROUP II—WORKS OF ART, ETC.
      Item No.
      1. The disposal of an object with respect to which estate duty is not chargeable by virtue of section 30(3) of the Finance Act 1953, section 34(1) of the Finance Act 1956 or the proviso to section 40(2) of the Finance Act 1930.
      2. The disposal of an object with respect to which capital transfer tax is not chargeable by virtue of section 32(3)(a), or (4), 34(6)(a), or the words following paragraph (b) of section 34(6) of the Finance Act 1975.
      3. The disposal of property with respect to which capital transfer tax is not chargeable by virtue of section 78(4) of the Finance Act 1976.
      4. The disposal of an asset in a case in which any gain accruing on that disposal is not a chargeable gain by virtue of section 147(2) of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979.'
      This is a consequence of the Value Added Tax (Works of Art, Etc.) Order 1983. That order adds a new group 11 to Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1972. Therefore, the amendment adds a new group 11 to schedule 6.
      The order was made on 31 May, after the Dissolution of the previous Parliament and came into force on that day. It was not laid before the House until we assembled on 15 June and the 40 days during which it may be prayed against do not expire until next Monday. It is, of course, theoretically possible that it will be prayed against and thus cease to be law. In that case, it would be wrong for the Bill, when enacted, to contain provisions along the lines of the amendment. I therefore undertake that matters will be arranged in such a way that the Bill will not be presented for Royal Assent until after Monday and that in what I regard as the highly improbable event of a prayer against the order the Bill will be brought back for the amendment to be deleted.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedules 7 to 11 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with an amendment.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed with an amendment.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
      That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, Mr. Stan Crowther, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Ray Ellis, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Mark Hughes, Mr. David Knox, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Gerald Malone, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. John D. Taylor and Mr. Bowen Wells be members of the Select Committeee on European Legislation. — [Mr. Goodlad.]

  Newspaper Industry (Industrial Relations)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  11.51 pm
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I asked for this debate because the present Financial Times dispute coinciding with the White Paper on trade union legislation emphasises once more the peculiar dangers of strike action in the newspaper industry and the damage that it can do to the national interest.
  I do not wish to spend long on the details of the Financial Times dispute, because I am more concerned with the additions that it has provided to the body of evidence that has mounted up over the past six years of what amounts to effective censorship of the press through industrial action by production staff, notably by the National Graphical Association. The present stoppage at the Financial Times, whatever the reasons for it, is itself a considerable interference with the liberty of the press, especially as it began during a general election period.
  As the House knows, the Financial Times stopped printing on 1 June when all 270 of its NGA workers were called out in support of a dispute involving the 24 NGA workers in the press room, of whom only eight were wholly employed by the Financial Times, the others working partly for the Financial Times and partly for other newspapers.
  It is important to recognise that there was no dispute between the Financial Times and the other print union, SOGAT 82. Indeed, for the Financial Times to give in to the NGA and to meet all its demands would seriously disrupt the pay differentials accepted by SOGAT 82 as part of the wider press room agreement to which SOGAT 82 and the Financial Times have kept but which the NGA now disputes.
  The dispute continued. On 29 June, after a series of discussions at ACAS, the Financial Times and the union began talks under the guidance and supervision of an independent mediator sitting with two assessors. Their object was to seek a press room agreement on staffing, pay and productivity, and they hoped to complete that agreement by 3 July.
  The arrangements for these talks were formally accepted by both sides and were fully supported by Mr. Len Murray of the TUC. Mr. Murray confirmed in writing that the TUC expected both parties to respect the outcome of the agreed procedures and act on its recommendations.
  The mediator made his recommendations on 3 July. They were immediately accepted by the Financial Times. On 7 July, the NGA held a meeting, as a result of which it objected to the recommendations of the mediator. Its main reason for doing so was that the proposals did not give it a 19·5 per cent. differential over the SOGAT members of the printing staff, a differential that is more than any other similar one in Fleet street, and more than has been enjoyed by the NGA over SOGAT in the Financial Times. Today we have learnt that the NGA has refused to consider the peace plan of Mr. Len Murray and Mr. Lowry, the chairman of ACAS.
  Now, despite all the efforts of the management concerned, which if anything has been too weak rather than too harsh with the unions, and despite the fact that
  682
  there has been no dispute with the other unions in the print rooms—which stand to suffer if the NGA gets its way—and that the TUC has made every effort to bring the NGA to its senses, the Financial Times is still not being produced.
  I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State find this situation as intolerable as I do. The loss of circulation and advertising to the newspaper can never be recovered. The Financial Times is losing about I million a week. The international edition is losing long-term contracts to the Herald Tribune and the Wall Street Journal, whose circulation has gone up by 4,000 a day since the strike started. The Financial Times has not taken an intransigent attitude. Only now has it decided that it must reduce SOGAT wages to the Newspaper Publishers Association basic rate. Only now is it seeking SOGAT agreement for alternative printing arrangements for the international edition. In other words, in the interests of getting as smooth a transaction as possible to the modern technological methods so essential to maintain its competitive position abroad as well as here, it has made every possible attempt to bring the unions along with it.
  The condition that makes such things possible is the closed shop. Without it, it would be possible for management to bring in alternative labour without causing trouble or being in breach of agreement with the other unions. There are some palliatives other than doing away with the closed shop that could help in such circumstances. They are enforceable lay-off clauses, and enforceable contracts of employment. However they would not be nearly as effective as outlawing the closed shop, at least in the newspaper industry because of its peculiar and particularly important position, although one could go some way in that direction by making the union rather than the individual liable for damages for breach of contract in cases where a closed shop is in force.
  I hope that the Government will agree that some special action is needed. However weak and unco-ordinated the Newspaper Publishers Association Ltd. might be—it has not always shown up very well in these situations—we are confronted with an almost impossible situation in which only the Government can give any long term help.
  I also hope that the Government will agree that quite apart from other considerations the threat to the freedom of the press justifies special measures in the newspaper industry. As Lord Denning said in giving judgment in another context
  "Interference with the freedom of the press is so contrary to the public interest that it has to be regarded as the unlawful employment of means."
  Another aspect of the NGA's activities is its ability to interfere with the liberty of the press in reporting disputes in which we are involved and to use industrial power to prevent the publishing of news, comment or advertisements which are politically unacceptable to them.
  In this current dispute, the Financial Times put out two advertisements. The first was carried by The Guardian on Friday 24 June, but The Times and the Daily Telegraph, for one reason or another, did not feel able to print, even as an advertisement, that explanation of the Financial Times' position. The Financial Times produced a follow-up, carrying on its explanation on Monday 18 July. That fared better and appeared in The Times, although the Daily Telegraph continued to feel unable to print such an advertisement.

  683
  I have certain indications that comment on this dispute has been modified in one way or another for fear of causing union trouble. I must admit that I have no hard evidence that would stand up in court but people are understandably worried in such situations about coming forward. As Mr. David Astor pointed out in a famous article as far back as 1977
  "public cases of press censorship by unions constitute only the tip of an iceberg".
  There are more instances under this Government.
  In April 1979 the NGA blacked advertisements inserted by advertisers who were also using the Nottingham Evening Post with which the NGA was in dispute. The High Court made an order to stop that. The NGA appealed and it was rejected by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning. He said
  "The union has no right to use industrial strength to interfere with the freedom of the press."
  He continued with the words which I quoted previously.
  On 16 July 1982, The Standard reported a speech by the Secretary of State for Employment in which he praised Mr. Joe Wade of the NGA for giving a direct and blunt warning to the print trade of the need for more flexible working practices and the acceptance of new technology. Mr. Wade also said that in Holland where the technology had been accepted there was a shortage of printers and in the United Kingdom there was unemployment among printers.
  Apparently that praise was not welcome, for both it and Mr. Wade's photograph were cut out of later editions of The Standard having appeared in the first edition.
  In September 1982 the editorial of the Daily Mail on the TUC day of action was blacked because the NGA chapel disapproved of the context and the editor rightly refused to alter it.
  Later still, on 6 June this year, The Times reported that the Daily Express leading article on the march for jobs rally had failed to appear in the paper's first edition when a demand by the NGA for right of reply on the same page was refused.
  None of those or other similar incidents appear to cause much concern to Members of Parliament or to the media. Perhaps they are too trivial, but I do not think that they are. They do not seem to worry my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Yet when The Times failed to appear on 13 January 1977, their reaction in Opposition to what they regarded as censorship of The Times by the NGA was fierce and immediate. In response to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the then Prime Minister, when his reaction to that gross infringement of the freedom of the press appeared to be inadequate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, shouted:
  "I little thought that I would ever hear a Prime Minister uphold the censorship of the Press, because that is what he has done." — [Official Report, 13 January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 1638.]
  On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment expressed no less strongly his sense of outrage.
  Yet nobody now appears to worry too much. One might say "Where have all the protests gone?" I hope that it is not because we have come to consider such incidents as too trivial to worry about. After all, there are other
  684
  newspapers. The press is still relatively healthy. There is a local press, a regional press and a number of national newspapers. These incidents have affected very few.
  I hope that it is not the case, as it is in so many other areas, that we are becoming so used to that type of abuse that we tend to accept it as an inevitable part of modern life, without there being much that anyone can do about it. Trivial as some of the incidents may appear, it is impossible to regard any threat, large or small, to the freedom of the press to publish what it likes under the law to be unimportant.
  The Government must not allow over-powerful groups of individuals, not even the NGA, to interfere with the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the press.
  12.8 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): How well I understand the concern felt by my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mr. Macmillan) that has led him to raise this matter on the Adjournment. He was right to suggest that it is not simply a response to the most recent strike that has affected the Financial Times. There is a much wider feeling of concern.
  As one whose connections with the printing industry stretch back over 20 years, I am well aware of the serious effects on the printing industry of the actions of trade unions which, instead of using their power for the benefit of the people they serve, or for the nation as a whole, have sought to use it for narrow and short-term reasons. As the Royal Commission suggested, the spotlight turned on what is wrong in Fleet Street and, in a sense, turned on what has been deeply wrong in our country as a whole.
  The problems of Fleet Street are perhaps more important than the problems of any other industry. As my right hon. Friend said, they are a matter not merely of industrial dispute but of the very freedom of the press. The industrial dispute, which may be for a specific reason—perhaps about pay or conditions — can destroy the opportunity of thoughts, views and attitudes being put over. It has begun to dawn on people how much damage has been done, and I support the comments made by my right hon. Friend about some of the occasions when there have been clear and undoubted attempts to censure the press. He mentioned some and I will mention some others.
  My right hon. Friend will remember some of the activities during the so-called day of action when a Liverpool newspaper was unable to print material which it wished to print because of the action of the National Graphical Association. My right hon. Friend referred to the Daily Mail being unable to produce a leader and having to leave that space in its newspaper empty because of the action of one of the unions. It was repeated by the Press Council, and I quote from that repeat in 1977:
  "Newspaper industry workers and trade unions are not in a special, privileged position in regard to the publication of material of which they are critical. Their rights are no greater and no less than those of the rest of the public. Like everyone else, they are entitled to the assurance that impartial consideration will be given by the Press Council to any complaint made by individuals, chapels or unions about a newspaper's content or conduct. No-one should usurp an editor's responsibility to the public and to the law for what appears in his newspaper."
  It is the attempt to usurp the editorial powers that has done so much damage to the newspaper industry, and I applaud my right hon. Friend for raising the matter.
  I am tempted to join my right hon. Friend in his comments about the problems at the Financial Times. I

  685
  must restrain myself from that because, although the present news is bad and things look difficult, and despite the clear attempt by Mr. Len Murray and the TUC to find an answer to the problem, with ACAS considerably involved, I feel that it would be a mistake to make the solution more difficult by the kind of comments one might make on the Floor of the House.
  That is not because I do not feel them strongly; but the talks are to continue and I am concerned that the newspaper should get back on to the streets, not least because of the remarkable job it has been doing in the rest of Europe, establishing itself, and it is that establishment which my right hon. Friend mentioned, fearing that it will have lost out considerably to its competitors.
  It is well known that, not just on this issue but on others, for one reason or another Fleet Street has been particularly vulnerable to this sort of self-inflicted wound. The great sadness is that the effect of these strikes has been not to protect the jobs which so often they are supposed to do, but actually to reduce them. In April 1970 there were 155,800 employed in the industry. There are now 140,000.
  At the beginning of the final report of the Royal Commission on the Press appeared a quotation from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Blue Carbuncle". In 1892 an advertisement was to be placed in the evening newspapers. When somebody asked which evening papers, the answer was:
  "Oh, in the Globe, Star, Pall Mall, St. James's Gazette, Evening News, Standard, Echo and any others that occur to you."
  That could not happen today. The only remaining evening newspaper in London is The Standard. As a boy, I remember a vendor on the street corner shouting, "Star, News, Standard". The Star and the Evening News have gone and The Standard is left. The number of jobs is reduced. When I read that when the trade unions decide that they might like to produce their own newspaper—it is right to have as wide a range of newspapers as possible —what do I see? I see that they look to a newspaper which has new equipment and uses new techniques—the techniques that trade unions have stopped being used in any of the present newspapers—because they admit that that is the only way to make a newspaper work, to produce a new newspaper and to create new jobs in the newspaper industry.
  How sad it is that in regarding what they want to do for themselves, those unions have to admit that they too do the opposite to that which they have done for years and years. They have to welcome new techniques, new technology, remove the threat of industrial action and ensure that a newspaper can depend upon regular daily production.
  If that is necessary for a new trade union newspaper, it is just as necessary for those newspapers which exist already. The sadness of the industry is that we have seen, year after year, a decline in the number of newspapers.
  I remember as a schoolboy that the Daily Telegraph's politics were balanced in our house by buying the News Chronicle. That cannot be done today. One has to put up with a restricted number of newspapers. There is no Daily Herald. Who has killed those newspapers? It must be the restrictive practices, because today's modern techniques should make more newspapers possible rather than fewer. That is the nature of the new technique. The new methods
  686
  make it possible to produce newspapers much more cheaply than at present. That should mean a wider range of newspapers.
  It is sad to look at the number of days lost in the newspaper industry. So far this year, the newspaper industry has lost 20,700 working days, about 8,000 of which only are related to the current dispute at the Financial Times. Many other disputes have taken place. In the past nine years industry generally has suffered stoppages averaging 463 day per annum per 1,000 employess; in the newspaper, publishing and printing industry, the corresponding figure is more than three times higher at 1,500 days per annum per 1,000 employees. A day and a half per man is lost in strikes in the newspaper industry. That is the measure of the poorness of industrial relations in the industry.
  Some of Fleet street's problems have arisen from the very agreements which managements and unions have reached with the presumed intention of bringing harmony to their industrial relations. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. If they are to be acceptable at all, closed shop agreements demand responsibility from the unions which enter into them. It is an abdication of responsibility to enter into such an agreement without the intention of ensuring that the union keeps its side of the bargain. If pockets of workers can disrupt production in a closed shop, it is for management to consider whether the closed shop agreement is worth having.
  It is far from coincidence that the newspaper industry, which has such a sorry industrial relations record, is also one of the industries in which the tentacles of the closed shop—in its most virulent pre-entry form— are most deeply entwined. There can be no better example of the harm which the closed shop does, not just to individual liberty but also to our economic health as a nation; and no better example either of the justification for the measures on the closed shop which we have taken. I note that in a leading article on 14 July 1983 The Times stated that it
  "is for Fleet Street managements to introduce a system, such as a layoff clause in their working agreements, which would prevent small groups of workers being able to hold the whole company to ransom because it has to continue paying all its other workers during their period of enforced idleness."
  The unions should take note that desperate managements are having to consider these issues to defend their companies against the attacks of short-sighted militants. They would be well advised to put their house in order.
  On the positive side of this depressing picture, I must say that some unions, at least, are seized of the need for change. Although my right hon. Friend mentioned an occasion on which there appeared to be some form of censorship, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Employment—a job previously held by my right hon. Friend who introduced this debate — was quoted in The Standard. I have the copies here. I cannot prove anything about it, nor can my right hon. Friend, but anyone who had a malevolent mind might wonder why, in the first edition, there was a picture of Mr. Joe Wade and a section praising him for the clear statement that he made at the union's conference in Eastbourne last year:
  "I have to say to you that unless we are prepared to take on board the full implications of new technology, unless we are prepared to be more flexible in our attitudes, and unless we are prepared to co-operate in improving productivity within the industry, we shall be engulfed by a tidal wave of technology which we will not be able to control. I know that there will be those who will argue that to go down that road would result in the loss of many more jobs. I have to say to you that the reverse

  687
  is true. Unless we make the industry more efficient, unless we reduce unit costs of production, unless we become more flexible—what we will undoubtedly get is even more competition from abroad and from instant print shops at home".
  That is what Joe Wade said. My right hon. Friend referred to it with approbation, with his customary charm, in the article that was printed in The Standard. That reference appeared in the first edition, and there was a
  688-690
  picture of Mr. Wade. In the second edition, there was no picture of Mr. Wade. No doubt that was a great sadness for many who bought the newspaper for that purpose and then found that the whole section was excised.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield): THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords— Took the Oath or Affirmed.

By-Pass Construction Programme
Lord Sandys: 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 many new by-passes have been completed round towns and villages since May 1979 and how many more will be started in the current year.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, since May 1979. 48 specific by-passes and diversions have been completed on trunk roads in Great Britain—34 in England, 9 in Scotland and 5 in Wales. A further 35 are either under construction now or will be by the end of this year—19 in England, 10 in Scotland and 6 in Wales. By-passes on other roads are the responsibility of local highway authorities.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very encouraging Answer, may I ask him whether there is any information about a particular by-pass in the West Midlands, namely the Bewdley by-pass? May I also ask him whether there are further bv-passes in the road programme intended beyond 1985?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in response to my noble friend's last supplementary question, there are 160 by-passes and diversions in the current road programme, the planning for which takes us up to the mid-1990s. Regarding the particular by-pass which was mentioned by my noble friend, he will appreciate that I do not have information on every one, but thinking that he might ask about this one, I can say that it is a local authority scheme—a matter for the Hereford and Worcester County Council—and we still have to receive that county council's transport policies and programme document for 1984–85. Therefore I am not able to tell him yet exactly what that county's plans are.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the criterion for by-passes has been towns of at least 10,000 population, can the Minister say how many will not have been by-passed by the end of the 1980s? Can he also say whether any of the projected plans are likely to be affected by the proposed public expenditure cuts?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, about 161 or over 65 per cent, of historic towns situated on trunk roads will already have been by-passed. When the current construction programme is completed, all but
1246
a handful will have been relieved of most of their through traffic. As to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at this present time there is no plan to cut the road programme.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the concept of the continuance of the M23 has now been abandoned, and if not, when would it be restarted?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the M23 is not a by-pass and I very much regret that I am not able to give my noble friend that information; but I will certainly investigate and acquaint him with the answer.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the ancient City of Ripon is to have a by-pass? It has one of the oldest cathedrals in the country, the foundations of which are being shaken by the heavy traffic which comes thundering round Ripon, totally blocking it up and spoiling this lovely old city.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there are so many instances that I think the noble Baroness will excuse me if I say that I am not able to remember; nor, in a great long list of some 160, can I turn my eye to it at the moment. However, I will certainly see that she is given information about that.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he knows whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has in mind the acceleration of the completion of the Edinburgh by-pass so that it can be finished before the Commonwealth Games in 1988?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret to have to come to this Dispatch Box for the third time and say that I do not have the required information because it is just one of a great number; but I will certainly write to my noble friend.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I notice that May 1979 is mentioned in the Question. I assume the noble Lord will agree that many of these by-passes were initiated by the previous Government?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as the House will be well aware—and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, perhaps even more so—road construction programmes are of a long duration and they embrace a number of administrations.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is it not time that we by-passed all these by-passes with a few brand-new cargo waterways? Also, although this may be a different question, would the noble Lord not agree that it ought not to be a different question?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, indeed I do agree with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that it is a different question. Perhaps I may refer him to an Unstarred Question with regard to the waterways which is to be discussed on Monday. We may perhaps find that we can proceed further down those waterways that evening.

Driving Offences Causing Death: Penalties
3.9 p.m.
Lord Monson: 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 ensure that anybody convicted of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving, particularly when under the influence of drink or drugs, will be disqualified from driving for at least five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the courts must already impose a minimum of one year's disqualification on all those convicted of causing death by reckless driving or of driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, and the maximum penalty for causing death by reckless driving is five years' imprisonment. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that these penalties are adequate, and we do not propose further to restrict the discretion of the courts to impose the appropriate sentence in each case.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his reply, somewhat disappointing though it is. Will he agree that there is considerable public disquiet over a recent and perhaps not untypical case concerning a motorist, convicted of killing a motor cyclist as a result of dangerous driving and having twice the legal limit of alcohol in his bloodstream at the time, who not only had his prison sentence suspended for somewhat inconsistent reasons but was banned from driving for a mere 12 months —which, of course, is no longer a ban than that which is applicable to very much less serious offences? Would the Minister agree that such short periods of disqualification for killing people unlawfully not only have little deterrent value but are perhaps something of an insult to the families of the victims?
Lord Elton: My Lords, even if I had all the details of the case before me the noble Lord would not expect me to undertake the task of the court and come to a judgment. It is for the courts to decide when they have the material before them.

Electoral Reform
3.10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have proposals for a referendum on electoral reform; or whether they propose to introduce legislation for this purpose.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the noble Lord yesterday.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, even before the launching yesterday of the Campaign for Fair Votes, the opinion polls showed a
1248
large majority in favour of proportional representation and an even larger majority in favour of a referendum? Is he aware that, if the majority of MPs rejected both of these demands and insisted on deciding how they themselves were elected, and chose the electoral system most convenient to themselves and their parties, this would be an outrage and a kind of political curruption?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the elected representatives of the people are doing what they were elected to do. They are choosing how to run this country and the electoral system. Seventy per cent, of them voted against the parties which want proportional representation, and I see nothing unjust in that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that to adhere to what is suggested in this Question would mean the Government abdicating their responsibilities? They won the election on the very clear understanding that they would preserve the tried and trusted system which has served this country successfully over very many years. A referendum gives an alibi to a Government and no Government—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that to give a Government an alibi by referring to a referendum weakens the power which a Government can have? They have a responsibility for success or failure which should be clearly seen.
Lord Elton: My Lords, first, as to a referendum, a referendum works only if you can ask one straight, simple question to which the answer is yes or no. That cannot be the case with proportional representation, because there are so many different sorts. The Government believe that they are standing in the path of a hallowed national tradition, which is respected by all except those who feel that they could gain political advantage by changing it.
Lord Ingrow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the real outrage requiring electoral reform relates to those people who, because they are away on holiday, are not able or cannot afford to change their holiday, cannot vote in a general election? Can my noble friend give an assurance that all citizens will have a democratic right to vote at the next general election?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if my noble friend likes to ask me such a question, I shall answer it, but it is a different one from the one that I am answering now.

The General Election: Party Support
3.13 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what they attribute the decline in their support in the recent general election, and what changes in policy they are proposing in consequence.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I believe that the result of the recent general election represented a decisive vote of confidence in the policies being pursued by the Government. As we have made clear, we shall continue to pursue these policies, which we believe offer the best hope of ensuring continued security and economic recovery for this country.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that he won widespread respect in all parties for introducing proportional representation in Northern Ireland? Does he recall that the system which he chose, the single transferable vote—perhaps, for brevity, we might call it the Whitelaw system—meant that if a party had fewer votes it had fewer seats? Why has the noble Viscount now changed his mind, and why is he supporting a system which, as he saw at the election, enables a party to get three-quarters of a million fewer votes and yet many more seats?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think it would be fair for me to reply to the noble Lord that things in Northern Ireland are not exactly the same as in other parts of the United Kingdom. In that respect it was for a local Assembly and not for a national Parliament, which I regard as being quite different.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount how he can possibly use the word "decisive" and say that the party in power had the "decisive" support of the electorate in this country when only 31 per cent, of the electorate voted for that party?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, having myself fought I think 11 general elections in my time, I have come to regard the number of people returned to the House of Commons as a decisive answer in a general election. On that basis, I should have thought that the result was very decisive.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, can the noble Viscount explain why it is that so many members of the Tory party are in favour of proportional representation?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not know that there are. If there are, it is their affair and not mine; and I am not in favour.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there were a number of members of the Tory Party who were at one time misguidedly in favour of proportional representation, including myself, but who had good reason to change their minds when they saw that there was no longer a danger to this country from the election of a Marxist or near-Marxist party, which had the support of only about 29 per cent, of the people?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I recognise the point made by my noble friend. I still maintain that a system of proportional representation would not be in the best interests of this country. That is what I believe, and I am sticking to my belief.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, could the Minister tell us the reason for the completely
1250
disastrous decline in Tory support in Scotland, where they lost two Ministers and gained about one-third of the seats? What effective change will this mean in the policy of the Government towards Scotland?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I appreciate the position in Scotland, but I think that the noble Lord and others wish Scotland to be part of the United Kingdom and, therefore, it is the result for the whole of the United Kingdom that really matters.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Viscount's reply to his noble friend Lord Renton indicate that he approves of a position where the votes of the people should not represent the wishes of the people but should represent the wishes of another person? In other words, he said that he changed his mind when he found that there was no longer any danger. Does the noble Viscount believe that the votes of the people should not represent their wishes?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not think that that would be a construction to be placed on my remarks. My noble friend was giving his reasons for having changed his mind. I gave my reasons for not having changed my mind.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question he is asked is: what changes of policy is he likely to recommend? Is he aware that the policy as announced has brought the credibility and the creditability of this country higher in the eyes of the world than they have been for a quarter of a century?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am always grateful for such comments from my noble friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with regard to that supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would the noble Viscount agree that cuts in public expenditure of the magnitude which have been reported in the press and which the Cabinet are said to have discussed this morning will impose serious changes of policy which will affect the National Health Service, the education service and other aspects of the welfare state in this country?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, with his great experience of politics, should believe everything he reads in the press. I can assure him that the deductions he has reached are not accurate.

The Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that it is hoped that the House will resume after the Summer Recess on Monday, 24th October. As I announced last week, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Wednesday, 27th July.
Business
Lord Denham: Your Lordships may also wish to know that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The House will adjourn at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period, and during this adjournment the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (Section 111) Amendment Order 1983 will be taken.
London Transport (Liverpool Street) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Dartford Tunnel Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Procedure of the House
3.20 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That the First Report of the Select Committee be agreed to.
The report read as follows:
1. LINKED AMENDMENTS
The Committee have considered the inconvenience that may arise from the fact that, where the first in a group of linked amendments (which is often simply a paving amendment) is disagreed to, the succeeding amendments in the group are not printed in the Official Report. The Committee recognise the existence of this problem but do not feel able to recommend a permanent solution at present. However, they propose that, for an experimental period until the end of this session, it should be open to a Lord, when moving the first in a group of linked amendments, to indicate any subsequent amendments of substance in that group that he wishes to be printed, by leave of the House, in the Official Report. This would be the authority for the Editor of Debates to insert those amendments at that point. When this course is adopted, the text of any of the subsequent linked amendments which are agreed to would not be reprinted at the point where they are actually moved. At that point they would be identified simply by their number in the Marshalled List and, where possible, by the column number of the Official Report where the text was printed.
2. PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE: CLAUSE STAND PART
The Committee have considered the practice of the House whereby Lords who wish to give notice of their intention to oppose a clause of a bill in committee of the whole House indicate their intention by placing on the Marshalled List of Amendments an italic notice "to leave out Clause …".
The Committee consider that the present practice causes some misunderstanding by giving the impression that a motion is being moved. The Committee believe that this misunderstanding could be eliminated if the form of the notice was altered as follows:
Clause Z
The Lord X and the Lord Y have given notice of their intention to oppose the question that Clause Z stand part of the Bill.
The Committee recommend accordingly.
3. ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Committee have considered a Standing Order recently made by the House of Commons enabling any member of that House, if he thinks fit. to attend as a witness before any Committee or Sub-Committee of this House without the necessity for an inter-change of messages between the two Houses.
The Committee recommend that a reciprocal Standing Order should be made by this House to enable any Lord, if he thinks fit, to attend as a witness before any Committee or Sub-Committee of the Commons without the need for a message.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be agreed to. In so doing, may I draw your Lordships' particular attention to the first two matters in the report. The first is to do with linked amendments. It has been found when one of your Lordships moves the first amendment in a group of amendments, which often is only a paving amendment for other more important amendments to follow, that if this is disagreed to or if it is withdrawn the succeeding amendments are not printed in the Official Report. Therefore the substantive part of the group of amendments may not appear in the official record.
In order to avoid this, it is suggested by the Procedure Committee that for an experimental period until the end of this Session it should be open to any of your Lordships when moving the first in a group of linked amendments to indicate any subsequent amendments of substance in the group that he wishes to be printed, by leave of the House, in the official record. This would be the authority for the Editor of Debates to include those amendments at that point. I would emphasise therefore that it is the responsibility of those of your Lordships who move the first in these groups of amendments to make it clear at that point that other amendments should be printed.
The second matter is one which has given rise to a good deal of confusion when there is a desire to leave out a clause at Committee stage and on the Marshalled List the words appear, in italics, "to leave out Clause" whatever it may be. This has led to people thinking that the Motion is to leave out the clause, whereas in fact the Motion is that the clause stand part of the Bill. This has also sometimes led to confusion in voting. The suggestion therefore of the Committee, to make it quite clear, is that the Marshalled List should read, "Clause" whatever it is, "The Lord X and the Lord Y have given notice of their intention to oppose the question that Clause Z stand part of the Bill". This would make it a good deal clearer to everybody what Motion the debate is actually on. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I have one small reservation about this. Can the new amendment be treated with a certain amount of latitude? It is in my recollection that occasionally a paving amendment may lead even to a series of schedules. It would be rather ridiculous if whole schedules were to be printed immediately after the first amendment.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, various difficulties were put to the Committee of that very kind. That is the reason why we suggest that it should be only for an experimental period to see how it works. In those kinds of circumstances, if the schedules are not important to the series of amendments being proposed I hope that the noble Lord in question who is moving the group of amendments will not ask for them to be printed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Monetary Arrangements Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gowrie, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the convention which applies to this House, we on this side of the House cannot of course divide against the Bill. May I, however, inform Her Majesty's Government that in view of the fact that Argentina continues to re-arm and that there is no guarantee that the £100 million which is being advanced to Argentina will not be used for armaments purposes, we shall return to this question again and monitor progress very, very carefully indeed.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill
3.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Expenditure powers of local authorities:]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
(" () In exercising its powers under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 or under section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, in so far as those powers exist only by reason of this Act, it shall not be lawful for a local authority to provide financial assistance (whether by grant, loan or guarantee) to any body whose composition is restricted by constitution or by practice to representatives of one or more political parties nor to assist organisations or activities calculated to promote a political cause.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I do not want to go back over what I said at Second Reading; but I should perhaps briefly explain why we think it is necessary that political expenditure should be excluded from the increased powers that the Bill would give authorities under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 and why we propose this new subsection as the vehicle for achieving this.
The principal aim of the Government is to make it possible for local authorities to contribute to urban development schemes out of the so-called 2p rate which allows a council to spend up to 2p in the pound rate on anything which it thinks is in the interests of its area. But though this is a general power it is limited to purposes other than those for which the authority
1254
already has powers and cannot be used to top up expenditure under other powers. There has therefore been some doubt whether urban development expenditure out of Section 137 money is legal. The Bill seeks to clarify this point. The trouble is that the Government have devised a blanket formula which will create as many problems as it solves. It opens up the possibility—and indeed the likelihood—of abuses which are at present precluded but would be legalised by the Bill.
It is at present at the very least doubtful whether it is proper for local authorities to use the 2p rate to contribute to the support of such bodies as the London Labour Leaders' Group, a quasi-local authority association whose membership is restricted on a party basis. It is even more doubtful whether, as the law stands, it would be legal for the London Borough of Islington to make premises available out of public funds to the Islington News Co-operative for the purpose of publishing and distributing a free newspaper with a party political bias, or to make that co-operative a £20,000 grant to match an £80,000 loan from the Greater London Council. But the borough solicitor was in no doubt that they would be able to do precisely this, and much else besides, as soon as Parliament has passed the Bill we are now considering in Committee.
The argument was advanced in Standing Committee D in another place in the last Parliament that district auditors already have the responsibility of seeing that local authorities act reasonably and properly—I stress "reasonably and properly"—under Section 137. But there are considerable difficulties here. The Local Government Act 1972 requires that the district auditor must first be of the opinion that an expenditure is unlawful, and he is bound to be reluctant to take a case to court unless there is a provision in a statute or in the general principles of law that makes it expressly unlawful.
The anxiety which I am expressing is felt not only on these Benches. Some of the noble Lord's honourable friends felt exactly the same way in Standing Committee. One of them—and I paraphrase—applauded Mr. George Cunningham, the then Member for Islington South and Finsbury, who had moved the amendment, and said that an attempt should be made to tighten up the definition of permissible expenditure to exclude the support of political organisations with the use of ratepayer's money. Another of the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place said that over the past few years there had been a marked increase in the funding of political causes by local authorities, particularly in the London area, and that the district auditor was not on firm enough ground to act as an effective curb.
A line taken by some Members of the Standing Committee was that the remedy lay with the electorate; the "ballot box argument", if you like. I must apologise for repeating now what I said at Second Reading. We would accept that argument after—but only after—the introduction of proportional representation for local authority elections along the lines recently proposed in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. Pending this, we feel that some safeguard must be introduced into the current Bill.
A further objection was raised in the Standing Committee concerning interpretation of the words,
"promote a political cause".
which are the last words in the amendment now before the Committee. I am prepared to concede that we might improve on this at Report stage, particularly if the noble Lord the Minister will bring to the attempt the resources and ingenuity at his disposal. The essential point I wish to establish here is that there is a very great difference in the eyes of most normal people between support from the rates for campaigning and propagandist activities—and I would not distinguish here between a GLC campaign in favour of the CND and a Ministry of Defence campaign against it, if both were funded by public money—and schemes designed to promote employment and industry on a nonpartisan basis for the benefit of the community as a whole.
I would further suggest that it is not beyond the wit of man. and much less beyond the wit of your Lordships' Committee, to identify this difference in statute law. On these grounds, if the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not disposed to accept this amendment as it stands, then I invite him to join with me and like-minded noble Lords in an attempt to improve the amendment before Report stage. He would be meeting not only our wishes but also those expressed by many members of his own party. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord the Minister is going to tell me and my noble friends that, while he sympathises with the principle, this is not the time or the place to give effect to it, then we shall expect to hear very positive proposals from him as to the time and place at which the Government propose to legislate against such abuses of ratepayers' money. I beg to move.
Lord Spens: I put my name to this amendment for slightly different reasons from those of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I did so because I believe that Section 137 gives very important powers to local authorities—particularly in the fight against unemployment. The powers allow an authority to help local businesses to start up or expand, and they are handled by chief executives who have their ears to the ground and who know about businesses and about the need for them. I remember that two years ago, I was so enthusiastic about this power that I suggested that instead of a 2p rate there should be a 4p rate in this respect.
I believe that this power could usefully be confined to the lower level of councils, such as district, borough and parish councils. I understand the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, about the use of this power by the GLC, and I agree entirely with her. Anyway. I do not believe that that level of local government has its ear sufficiently to the ground to know how to use this particular power.
The point of this amendment, as I see it, is to protect that power from abuse by some local councils. I do not want such abuse to become so widespread that it will give the Government a chance to say that the whole power should be abolished. I believe I am right in saying that, when we discussed this particular section in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1982. there was a moment when the noble Lord
1256
the Minister suggested that the total of the rate for this purpose should be reduced from 2p to 1p. That seems to be an indication of the fact that there is a danger of the Government trying to use this as an excuse for abolishing the power altogether. I should just like to quote an opposite indication which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, two days ago—and I see him sitting on the Front Bench. The noble Lord said:
"But that is no good reason for certain local authorities moving outside the general bounds of good management and it is the Government's job to set down those general bounds". [Official Report. 19/7/1983; col. 1043.]
I suggest that this amendment would help the Government to set down those general bounds.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made a very good forecast of what he expected me to say, because I am going to say exactly what he anticipated—although I believe that I should explain why. Before doing so, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that, as he knows, a 4p rate would place £77–6 million in the hands of the GLC; and £38·8 million under Section 137 is already a lot of money.
The noble Lord made a very important point when he spoke about the abuse of this power—as indeed of any other very important section of any legislation—leading in the end to pressures for action to be taken which is wider than perhaps a Government might wish. Surely the answer to that point is that the whole of local government itself has to say. "Enough is enough". I am one of those people who, being ever optimistic, hope that this is what we shall see happen in the future, because I believe that local government is not at all happy about some of the things which are taking place in its name. I hope that local government itself will do something about that.
I quite understand and agree with the feeling that lies behind this amendment—but having said that, I must ask the Committee to reject this addition to the Bill. The noble Lord's amendment is, quite properly, drafted simply to apply to the scope of the present Bill. It would apply to grants, loans and guarantees made under Section 137 in connection with land acquisition and building work. I ask your Lordships to note carefully that it would apply to land acquisition and building work. It would not affect the generality of use of Section 137, and I will deal with that factor in a moment.
This amendment is identical to that put down by the former member for Islington South and Finsbury when this Bill was being debated in another place prior to the general election. The arguments advanced by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary still hold good and, in response, I must rehearse them today to the Committee. There can be no room for doubt about the Government's attitude to the way in which some authorities are using Section 137. I had strong words to say on that matter during Second Reading. Yet, as has been said, Section 137 is a most useful provision. It enables authorities up and down the country to carry out useful expenditure in circumstances where they have no specific powers. In particular, in some cases, it authorises the valuable social programmes of expenditure on urban programme and urban development grant schemes.

1257
But, as we have been told and as we know, there are cases where some local authorities have stretched the previously accepted conventions. I said during Second Reading that we are aware there is a problem here and are considering whether steps to deal with it are called for. But I have to say again that this Bill is not the place to take that action and I do not consider that the noble Lord's amendment represents a satisfactory way of dealing with this issue.
The Committee is invited to consider applying to the limited area of expenditure authorised by the Bill the restrictions contained in the amendment. We are also asked to approach this in a particular way. I fully appreciate why there is a wish to prohibit the use of Section 137 to assist party political organisations or political causes. But legislation has always adopted a careful approach in its references to political matters.
I should like to repeat a point made by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. While we cannot give authoritative rulings on the interpretation of the statutes, it is our view that expenditure on purely party political purposes cannot satisfy the tests required by Section 137 as it is drafted at present, and it is open to a ratepayer or to the auditor, even now, to approach the court in respect of a particularly bad case of a politically-motivated grant.
To import into Section 137 a prohibition of grants and loans to politically-motivated bodies gets us into problems of definition, to which I have to say the noble Lord has not produced an answer. As it happens, I am far from sure that the amendment would prevent authorities from incurring many of the examples of expenditure which are rightly criticised. Few, in fact, are related to expenditure on the acquisition of land or the execution of building works for the benefit of an area. Let us be quite clear: this is the sole extent of the present Bill; and while more generally under Section 137 there are undoubtedly grants going to bodies of a political colour, it is likely to be extremely difficult to prove that their membership is restricted to representatives of political parties. How is "restricted in practice" to be interpreted? What are "representatives" of political parties? What are "activities calculated to promote a political cause"? These are very imprecise terms, and they illustrate the great difficulty of moving away from convention to specific legislation.
There is also the other effect of the amendment to which I have to draw the attention of the Committee. If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, we would find ourselves in the position that one area of activity under Section 137 was qualified in the manner contained in the amendment while the rest of Section 137 would not be so qualified. The inference might well be taken that there was no prohibition of political expenditure other than in the limited context of the present Bill. Similarly, there would be the same inference to be drawn in relation to other discretionary powers of local authorities. The burden of proof placed on auditors or ratepayers in seeking to challenge a provocative case of expenditure, either under Section 137 or another power, would be heavier if Parliament had by implication seemed to suggest that politically-motivated expenditure was possible in those other circumstances.
1258
So, finally, let me say again that the Government are by no means happy with the uses to which some local authorities are putting the proceeds of their twopenny rate. We recognise indeed the mounting anger in the country against those mischievous authorities which are by their abuses putting an ever greater burden on their ratepayers. Nor are we complacent about these problems. The authorities involved should not assume—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will note this—that the Government do not have the will or the ability to rectify the problem. I am bound to say that this Bill—essentially a technical measure—is not the right vehicle through which to tackle these problems. In view of that, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not doubt, and I am sure many who are apprehensive about the situation disclosed by my noble friend will not doubt, that the Minister and his colleagues are seriously concerned about what has been happening in a number of London boroughs and elsewhere, where the activities of the extreme Left, which has taken control of those local authorities, have done grave damage to the reputation of English local government. I do not doubt, and I am sure nobody else does, the noble Lord's general condemnation of such behaviour. But the question he has to answer is a rather different one: what is he going to do about it?
The noble Lord and I had the opportunity to discuss a not dissimilar question some little time ago concerning the London Borough of Southwark. What the London Borough of Southwark had done, in order to demonstrate their disapproval of the military base at Greenham Common, was to say that any public works contractor who carried out work at Greenham Common and secured a Ministry of Defence contract there would be debarred from securing any contract with the London Borough of Southwark. A debate took place in this House. The Minister made a very forceful speech in which he indicated his deep disapproval of the behaviour of Southwark. He indicated that he would discuss the matter with the Office of Fair Trading, and he indicated that the Government were keeping a very close watch on these developments.
What has happened since? The Office of Fair Trading said it had nothing to do with them or that they could not take action, or something of that sort, and the situation remains as it was when this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House; namely, a statement by the Minister—wholly sincere, I do not doubt—condemning the local authority concerned for what, in my view, was clearly unlawful action, quite apart from any other considerations, but no action by the Government themselves to take account of this very serious development.
Now we come to what the London Borough of Islington is going to do with the noble Lord's Bill. Have no doubt: it is this Bill they are waiting to see put on the statute book so that they can spend up to £100,000 of public money on a Left-wing newspaper which is going to be created in the London Borough of Islington. I have in front of me a document giving the view of the Islington borough's solicitor which was submitted to the Employment Grants and Financial

1259
Assistance Sub-committee of that authority on 18th April this year. I propose to quote it, because I think it will indicate to the Committee the situation which we are in reality debating in terms of my noble friend's amendment. In paragraph 1 it says:
"These observations are written before a package of assistance has been worked out. but officers met on 7th April representatives of the Co-operative".
That is the Islington News Co-operative, the body that has been established in order to publish and distribute this give-away newspaper.
"They explained their financial requirements and other sources of funding, though without exact figures I believe the Co-operative's request to the council is comprised of four elements:

"(a) a loan towards the acquisition of 322 Upper Street;

(b) a loan towards the cost of the refurbishment works;

(c) a grant towards either the cost of acquisition or the cost of works or both; and

(d) a grant towards working capital required".

That gives a general indication of what the cooperative is trying to get from the London Borough of Islington.
We now turn to this particular Bill and its relevance to what the Islington News Co-operative is endeavouring to achieve. Under a subheading in paragraph 4 of the solicitor's note, the document reads as follows:
"Grant towards cost of acquisition or costs of work, or both:
"There is at present no statutory power to make such a grant. Section 137(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 does not apply because comparable power to make a loan exists in the shape of Section 3 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. As I have advised members previously, this legal difficulty is a recent one, accidentally engendered by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which was intended to extend the ambit of Section 137, and is about to be remedied by the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill currently in Parliament. If and when this Bill is passed, then, subject to what is said generally about Section 137 and local authorities' powers generally, there would be power under Section 137(1) to make such a grant, and it is fairly clear from the information provided by the Co-operative that some funding under this head would be required."
That is a substantial document, and if the Minister would like to see it I will gladly make it available to him.
So it is clear that Islington News Co-operative is to exist and will obtain its financial assistance from the London Borough of Islington entirely because of the passage of this Bill. That is the legal advice made available by the council's principal legal officer. Since the Bill did not proceed quite as briskly as the council had hoped, so far no public money has been made available to the co-operative.
Now we may ask a different question. There is no doubt that Islington is a left-wing local authority, as most of your Lordships know, and one could expect this of it. But is there any other reason why Islington local authority is keen to have this give-away newspaper? The answer is, Yes. The council has been having a feud with the Islington Gazette. The Islington Gazette, unlike this free newspaper which the council intend to publish at public expense, is a normal weekly newspaper relying on its income from sales and from advertising. I shall not go into the whole background of this dispute because it would take far too long. I know that the Minister is well aware of it. When the Labour Party again secured power in Islington in May of last year a decision was made by members of the
1260
authority to instruct its officers, and indeed the members of the authority itself, to have no contact whatever with representatives of the only newspaper circulating in the London Borough of Islington. The reason was that there had been an industrial dispute caused by the closure of a sister newspaper in the group owned by the Islington Gazette and as a result there had been a strike in a number of other newspapers in that group including the Islington Gazette.
The dispute came to an end, by and large, in May of last year; but, notwithstanding that, the instruction has continued. No officer of the London Borough of Islington has been allowed to answer any question from a journalist working for that newspaper; no committee chairman will speak to a representative of that newspaper; no council advertising has been allowed in that newspaper save for a few statutory notices where the council has been advised that it would be taking a considerable risk were it not to publish them in the columns of that newspaper.
I think that is an outrageous abuse of power by a local authority. That view is shared by the Press Council, I am glad to say, which has severely criticised the London Borough of Islington for its action. The council has also been severely criticised in a report by the local government ombudsman. There is some indication—but no certainty—that the council, as a result of the unremitting pressure it is getting from the local government ombudsman, may change its blacklist policy, at least to some degree, but there is no certainty.
That is the history of the row over the Islington Gazette and it is primarily for that reason that the council is now deciding to publish a newspaper at public expense. It has two aims in mind. The first is to serve a useful role in providing a propaganda arm for the majority party on the Islington borough council. The second is to try to put the weekly newspaper out of business. That is the objective and there is no doubt about that whatever. Moreover, by publishing a free newspaper it will be able to offer extremely competitive advertising rates compared with a commercially produced newspaper.
As I have made clear, it will only be able to do this because of the passage of this Bill through this House. Therefore, what I am hoping to hear from the Minister today—and if not today, on Report and if not on Report, on Third Reading—is not simply a wholly sincere statement condemning such abuses of power—I am sure we will hear that and will welcome it—but much more. We shall want a positive indication that firm action is to be taken.
When I was a Minister I did exactly what the noble Lord has also done on a number of occasions; that is, to explain how in fact an amendment is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable in the form in which it is drafted. But I hope that the Minister will agree that what is called for here is something quite different. What is needed is some indication that the Government are prepared to look at the language of this short Bill and consider whether action can be taken before the Bill finally leaves the House so that we prevent a further abuse of power taking place in Islington. If he does not I must make it quite clear that we will fight this Bill at every stage, otherwise we shall be permit-

1261
ting a local authority, which has won itself one of the worst reputations of any local authority in London, to continue its campaign of persecution against a newspaper that it does not like and to do it at public expense.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Birk: May I intervene before the Minister replies? I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in reply to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and I must confess that I agree wth almost everything he said. We have to get right back to the beginning of what this small Bill is about. It is to clarify a doubt which arose on whether local authorities would be in legal difficulties if they used Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 for urban grant development. With that doubt remaining numbers of local authorities of all political complexions are concerned about continuing with work which is extremely important to the development of the economy and, indeed, to employment.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when promoting the amendment, largely concentrated his attack on what is happening in Islington. But he said that the pressures had resulted in a change in his attitude and, as he has probably seen in the Guardian this morning, the ban has now been lifted. Publicity, knowledge of what is going on, the right of ratepayers to make their voices heard and as the Minister said action that can be taken by auditors, are all ways in which in our democracy public opinion can make itself felt. I am not pretending that there are not abuses with which most of us would fundamentally disagree; but what I am certain about is that this Bill is not the right vehicle to deal with them.
The noble Lord said that if the Government did not like the amendment they could bring forward something else. It is clear that the Government have rightly taken the view that they cannot bring forward anything else which would fit properly into this piece of legislation. The situation remains as the Government say. How does one define political? Also how does one define what is and what is not an abuse? It is a matter of judgment. The Bill is concerned only with land transactions and economic development. It does not cover many of the alleged abuses to which the noble Lords have referred and to which reference was made on Second Reading.
If this amendment were approved, it would completely change the nature of the Bill from the technical and clarifying piece of legislation which it is at the moment to an ill-conceived attempt to deal with an ill-defined problem. We should not promote such legislation. Legislation is difficult enough anyway. But it is absolutely and entirely wrong to allow something like that to go through with one's eyes open. Had there been a way to meet the point, I am sure that it would have been done in an amendment, but there is no way to do it and it should not be done.
I support what the Minister has said in this area. Incidentally, very often a great deal is made of what are perhaps a small number of abuses by authorities. One should come down to earth and realise that of the £38 million budget under Section 137, to which the Minister referred, £24·9 million is devoted to industry
1262
and employment; £3·3 million to ethnic groups; voluntary community groups get £4·9 million (and this includes the citizens advice bureaux), and the grant to Gay organisations, about which much was made on Second Reading, totalled £23,000—which, to be realistic, considering the numbers in the population, is not terribly untoward. If we kept our eye on that point, and considered what is being given to industry and employment, and put things in their right perspective, it would be very much better. We on these Benches also feel that it would be much better if this Bill went through as it is and any other problems that arose were discussed in their proper context.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend replies, may I briefly associate myself with the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I find myself in very substantial agreement with them. I agree that there is a serious question of abuse. But in the long run surely it is publicity, public opinion and the electors themselves who should if possible be left to seek to remedy this abuse. In the short term specific legislation along the lines of this amendment is unwelcome in so far as it is designed to restrict payments to political parties, because this involves a degree of overlap with the existing machinery by which such matters can come before the courts and be challenged.
As regards restricting payments to politically motivated bodies, surely that is inappropriate, as it gives rise to serious questions of definition and perhaps a veritable mare's nest of litigation. Lastly, this amendment, although a valuable vehicle for an informative and most interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is outside the intendment or the Short Title of this Bill.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I recognise absolutely the great depth of feeling with which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, spoke. One has to respect that. It is a great bitterness that is felt by many people. First, I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to know, with reference to the article in the Guardian, which I too had intended to mention, that we understand Islington has withdrawn its ban on the Islington Gazette. That must be a good thing if it is true. I hope that it is, as I am sure does the noble Lord.
This Bill truly is about the acquisition of land or the execution of building works for the benefit of the authority. Of course I shall ask the noble Lord to let me have a look at the document to which he refers. He knows that I will do that. But I do not offhand see quite how what this Bill is proposing would have the results to which he refers. Nevertheless, I would want to see the document. But at the end of the day I have to fall back on what I said before. The noble Lord says that it is all right our saying that we shall do something about it, but what will we do. If it was that easy, something would have been done long ago. There is a problem with the issues of definition.
This Government above all have so often been accused of trying to curtail the powers of local authorities, and so on. That is just not true. We are reluctant at all times to do that. The fact is that it is a question of the extent of the pressures that build up.

1263
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said what is needed is publicity, and so on. Yes, it is; but what is also needed is the condemnation by local government itself on every possible vocal and written occasion. Local government has to face up to what is happening. However, that is for another time and not for today.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, seriously to consider withdrawing his amendment. He knows what the feeling is. This Bill is about enabling local authorities to get on with things. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Harris of Greenwich, must want to see that there is this facility for local authorities. Every day that we delay makes the matter more difficult. It is not what we should be doing.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, suggested that my amendment was too narrow to be fully effective. From what he said, he appears to be contemplating a wider attack on local authority powers along the lines that were feared by the noble Lord, Lord Spens. I thought I heard him uttering rather threatening noises in that direction. That seems to me to be a very good reason for limiting the damage through the present Bill before your Lordships' Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that there is no way of doing it. I must say that I would not accept this. If the amendment is defective in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, before I decide whether or not to withdraw it I should like to ask him whether he is prepared to meet us after the Committee stage of this Bill in order to discuss the matter constructively on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
Lord Bellwin: So far as this Bill is concerned I think that the noble Lord knows that we would not be willing or able, (a) to accept the amendment or, (b) to try to put into it another amendment along the lines of what he is saying. The problem as a whole is there for discussion and for consideration. I shall gladly meet both the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Harris of Greenwich, to talk about that outside in other contexts. But so far as this Bill is concerned there is in my view an imperative to get it on to the statute book. The longer we delay doing so, we are holding up work which everybody in the Committee wants to see take place. I think that we should get on with it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It was a most remarkable statement that the noble Lord has just made. The Bill arrived in this House only on Monday for Second Reading. Is the noble Lord saying that he will oppose any amendment to this Bill at any stage before he has read the terms of an amendment? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Bellwin: We are talking here about scope. The noble Lord will not draw me on that. The fact very simply is that we are talking about these amendments. I said that if there are any other amendments on similar lines the same thing will apply, and that is really where I stand.
Lord Kilmarnock: I think that I understood the noble Lord to say that he is prepared to meet us to discuss the whole matter in general terms, but not within the scope of this Bill. I do not wish to delay your Lordships' Committee, and there is another amendment to be considered. So on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw the present amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 17. at end insert—
("() The power conferred on a local authority by this section shall not apply to expenditure unless that expenditure has been approved by the local authority and by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in my name. It is a short amendment. Its terms are self-explanatory. I am particularly glad that at the moment we have the Leader of the House in the Chamber, because I am bound to say that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, indicating that he was prepared to reject any amendment before he had considered its terms, was one of the most remarkable I have heard made by a Minister in this House or elsewhere—
Lord Bellwin: I really must ask the noble Lord to withdraw that. It is not what I said. It is not what I intended, and it is wrong of him to say that I did.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the noble Lord then explain what he did intend? If I have inadvertently misrepresented him I will of course gladly withdraw, but, as I understood it, he was wanting to indicate to us, indeed he did indicate to us, that it was so vital to get the Bill on the statute book quickly, as fast as possible. Urgent work remained to be done. It was at the very least a quite clear implication that if he was not going to take objection in principle to any amendment put down, he would approach it in an extremely negative spirit. If I have got him wrong, I will gladly withdraw.
Lord Bellwin: I cannot keep getting up to repeat the same thing again and again. I think that what I have said was clear enough. I look around me and it seems that most of your Lordships appear to think that it was so. I do not think that I should expand on it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall now come to the terms of the amendment, because we will be coming back to this on Report stage—I should not leave the noble Lord in any doubt on that matter—and we will be coming back to it on Third Reading as well, in the form of amendments. What we have to say to him is that of course the Labour Party agrees with him on this matter because we are discussing the behaviour of a Left-wing local authority. So it is hardly surprising that when he looks for comfort from the Labour Benches he gets it. Of course he does. What we are concerned—
Lord Mishcon: If the noble Lord will give way for one moment, I should like to say that this Front Bench happens to stand for fairness. Therefore, it was in the

1265
interests of fairness that we made a protest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in regard to his version of what the noble Lord the Minister said. We were quite clear what he said. It had no politics in it at all. There were merely equity, justice and fairness in the protest that we made together with the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, but I shall look with interest tomorrow at the Official Report to see what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said. If inadvertently I have done him an injustice, of course I withdraw what I said. I think that we know one another well enough to say that. But I wish to draw this matter to his attention, and I hope that the Whip on duty on the Government Front Bench will take note of it as well. I know of very few precedents for a Bill receiving a Second Reading on Monday, having its Committee stage on Thursday, with a suggestion that it is going to have to be, or should be, or deserves to be, on the statute book by the following Wednesday. That, as I understand it—again, I hope that I am not misrepresenting the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin—is what he seemed to be at least suggesting.
Noble Lords opposite should be aware that when this matter is eventually put to a vote, as of course at some stage it will be, the Government Whips will find the Labour Party going into the Lobbies in support of the Government's position on this question. But they should also have no doubt that what they will be doing—and I say this in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to whom, as always, I listened with close attention—will be allowing the London Borough of Islington to spend up to £100,000 of public money for purposes which I have described. That is not simply my view; it is the view of the chief legal adviser of the London Borough of Islington; and I shall gladly be making the document concerned available to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin.
I hope that it be will possible for us to have a harmonious and agreeable meeting before the next stage of the Bill, by which time the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will have had the opportunity of reading the document. Then, no doubt, he will be in a position to advise the House at Report stage whether the extracts that I have read today are in accordance with the advice that he receives from his own department. But I repeat that noble Lords opposite should know quite definitely what they are doing. In this case in Islington this is the way in which £100,000 of public money is going to be spent if the Bill goes through in its present form. The amendment which I now propose—I do not intend to push it to a vote today because I hope we shall be meeting the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, before the next stage of the Bill—would seek to restrict this.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and other noble Lords opposite, as well as indeed noble Lords in other parts of the Chamber, if Islington gets away with this, what do they think will be going on in some of the other London boroughs? What do they think will be going on in the London Borough of Southwark. What will be going on in the London Borough of Greenwich? What will be going on in the London Borough of Camden? Once they have some statutory cover of this kind on the basis of the legal advice made available to the council in Islington by its
1266
principal legal adviser, there is a likelihood of large sums of public money being spent for these purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, says that there is a solution to that. The solution is that we will leave it to the electorate. But of course it will be years before there are any more local government elections in Islington, or Camden, or Greenwich, or elsewhere. Even then it does not necessarily do them much good, because most of the people in Southwark voted against the present majority party in Southwark and a lot of good it did them! They still have a local authority behaving in a wholly unreasonable fashion over the Greenham Common contracts.
So all I would say to the Government and their supporters is that, if this matter eventually comes to the vote—and I very much hope that it will not—they will undoubtedly have a number of members of the Labour Party supporting them in the Lobbies. But they should realise that the last time they had the Labour Party in their Lobbies was on 2nd August last year, when the Labour party was just as vigorously supporting the then Government spokesman, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he was telling the House that we should resist an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, himself (though eventually he sought to withdraw) which would in fact have made trade unionists contract in rather than contract out of the political levy. We know what developments there have been in Government thinking since then.
I would just repeat that I hope that we shall be able to discuss this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I recognise his problems. I know perfectly well that of course he wants to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. But I must say to him quite clearly that I very much hope that he will agree to talk to us if only on the basis that his mind is at least open to argument when we do in fact meet him.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask whether he accepts that I wholly share his concern. I wholly share it and in no way seek to denigrate it. Will he accept that where we differ is on the question of whether this Bill is an apt vehicle for the amendment which is proposed? But this in no way detracts from the concern which I think we both share.
Baroness Birk: I want to speak only very briefly to this land amendment, part of the upshot of which I think was not explained by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It means in fact that every transaction regarding land which comes within the clause would have to go to the Secretary of State. It really is the most ludicrous and outrageous suggestion.
On grounds of efficiency alone, it is wrong and absolutely impossible. There would be a huge backlog of applications. For quite different reasons, we on these Benches would not go along with more legislation, and an amendment that gave the Secretary of State even greater power, when, in regard to so much previous legislation, noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House—including, from time to time, those in the noble Lord's party, when they are present—have argued against the erosion of local government power by central Government. This amendment should be thrown out immediately.
Viscount Ridley: I am sure that the whole local authority world will be delighted to see the end of this amendment, whether at this stage or any other stage. It means an enormous increase in bureacracy, and is bound to result in a great deal of diminution of freedom of local government. I hope that the Government will resist it. The amendment has not been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I hope that it will not be. I do not think it will get him very far.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: Some of us had mixed feelings about the previous amendment. It was a badly drafted amendment to the wrong Bill. However, it represented the view, which many of us have held—my former colleagues in local authorities will confirm that I have always held it—that local authorities should not support party political activities. To that extent, there was some justification for the previous amendment. In contrast, the present amendment seems one of unalloyed wickedness. I am not surprised that it should be moved by Lord Harris. The noble Lord has been a centralist all his life, whether inside the Labour Party or outside it. I am, however, surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, should have put his name to it, because I thought that he was a libertarian.
We have here a proposal from the Government in a simple Bill to remove an anomaly from the application of Section 137 of the Local Government Act. I remind the Committee that Section 137 and its predecessors in previous Local Government Acts have been some small sign of independence of local authorities from permitted expenditure and the ultra vires laws ever since local authorities started. They have been the occasion when local authorities have engaged in their most creative and worthwhile new ventures. Anything that seeks to diminish Section 137 and diminish the powers of local authorities to act totally independently of central Government under the section should be resisted.
This Bill is designed to remove an anomaly that was not expected when the last Local Government Act was enacted. It is designed to recognise the fact that support for local activities can just as well take the form of support for acquisition of land and for building on land as for giving grants in other ways. There is no difference in principle between them. To seek to have that power referred to central Government and to allow central Government into Section 137 of the Local Government Act seems to me, as I have already remarked, an act of unalloyed wickedness. I hope that the Government will resist it.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said he hoped we would have a harmonious and agreeable meeting. He makes it harder for me to have a meeting that will be harmonious and agreeable by the way he always goes on at me. Nevertheless, as he well knows, I shall do my best with him when the time comes.
I am rather sad to see this amendment, which is totally out of touch with everything that one is seeking to do. By his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Harris, obscures to some extent some very real concern. I am sorry that even my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have felt it necessary—I understand why—to miss the point that the noble Lord, Lord
1268
Harris, is basically making. That is his considerable concern for what is going on.
All I can say in repeating why we cannot accept the amendment is to express my hope that no one in local government (I weigh my words carefully) will believe that for ever one can go on watching abuses of Section 137 of the kind that are taking place at the moment. It is not the Government that should be doing something about this—and something must be done. It is local government itself that must do something about it. I appeal to those in local government to make sure that something is done. There is no way in which we can accept the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: Will the noble Lord accept that the amendment under discussion was favoured by his honourable friend Sir George Young in Standing Committee in another place when the matter was last discussed?
Lord Bellwin: I cannot comment on that. I do not know. I hear what the noble Lord says.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I was about to remind the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, of that point. I can understand the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh of Haringey; and I congratulate him upon the degree of indignation that he managed to get into his speech. I wish that a little part of that indignation had been directed at the anti-democratic behaviour of his political colleagues in Islington; but, as we noted, it was not.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I think I stated clearly that throughout my time in local government I have been against expenditure by local authorities for party political purposes, and I am now. I thought I had made that clear.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Indeed. What I had hoped that the noble Lord would join me in doing was to condemn the examples I have given of what the Labour councillors at Islington have been doing. Of course, the noble Lord's position on the general abuse of power is well known. I have been indicating, like my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, the disgraceful behaviour of the Labour Party in the London Borough of Islington. Further examples of this have been given. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has indicated his concern, not only this afternoon but on the last occasion that we had the opportunity to discuss the matter. At that time we were discussing what the Labour Party was going in Southwark. It was behaviour defended on that occasion by the Opposition spokesman in your Lordships' House.
I do not propose to press the amendment today. I find it a little surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was so antagonistic towards it, given the different words used by Sir George Young during discussion in Standing Committee in another place. One would normally assume that Ministers of the same Government in the same department would at least have a common approach to matters of this kind. Sir George Young indicated that he would look at the matter carefully, but the Bill then died and we did not

1269
get any further with it in the last Session of Parliament. I look forward to an early meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in the next day or so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. (Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Cullen of Ashbourne in the Chair.]
Clause 27 [National security]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 21. line 4, after ("Crown") insert ("after consultation with the Registrar")
The noble Lord said: This clause of the Bill is concerned with national security and, in the absence of an amendment such as we have tabled here, exemption from Part II of the Bill, and thus from registration or any kind of supervision on grounds of national security, would be decided by a Minister of the Crown and no other person, apart from the data user himself, need ever know about what has happened.
The Minister said during the last "innings" that data which are exempted from either subject access or non-disclosure under the provisions of this part of the Bill, would not be left without any protection at all, as critics sometimes implied. In general, of course, that is true. Data users who hold data for the prevention or detection of crime, for instance, still have to register and, as the Minister pointed out, the registrar still has the power to ensure that where appropriate the principles which are contained in Schedule 1 are still observed. But in the case of the systems that are covered by Clause 27, the registrar, as I understand it, is completely unaware of their very existence until he receives a certificate signed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or one of his colleagues, in the terms set out in Clause 27(2). Incidentally, it is not even clear to me that the certificate mentioned here would have to be lodged with the registrar. As I read the Bill, it is possible that the certificate could simply be filed within the department never to see the light of day until someone like Mr. Duncan Campbell discovers the existence of the system in question and then it will be wheeled out to frustrate any unwanted questions that Mr. Campbell might seek to put to the Press Office of the Home Office.
Your Lordships will remember that the Lindop Committee suggested that a member of the Committee or, as we now have it, the registrar's staff, should have a high enough security clearance to be able to look at files proposed to be exempted for reasons of national security. If any Government should try in future to use Clause 27 to extend the area of secret computer files under the pretence of national security, but in fact for some more sinister purposes, then at least the registrar would become aware of what was happening. He would, of course, have no power to stop the Minister from signing the certificate, but if that was done against his advice, the Minister would have to run the risk that his conduct would become known to the public. Of course we are not in this amendment getting at the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is absolutely to be trusted with the enormous powers in this clause. But we do need, I suggest, to take precautions for the future against other Ministers who may occupy his post and who may see information technology as a weapon to be deployed unscrupulously against those who disagree with them, rather than as a resource for the people. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: When we considered last Session's Data Protection Bill, considerable attention was paid in Committee to Clause 27. Various comments, criticisms and suggestions were made and on Report I was able to bring forward a revised Clause 27 which, I was glad to discover, met most of the points that had been made in Committee. One of them was the importance of ensuring that an exemption on national security grounds was not available without the authority of a Government Minister at the highest level. We recognised the force in that argument. And we revised the provisions of Clause 27 accordingly. It now provides that any question of whether an exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security must be determined by a Minister of the Crown. And a Minister of the Crown is defined in subsection (6) as a member of the Cabinet, the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does me too much honour in suggesting that I might be included among that number in the foreseeable future. We thus sought to ensure that decisions of this kind—of a sensitivity and seriousness that are perhaps unique—rest where they can only properly be taken—at the highest level of government.
The noble Lord is now suggesting that an extra dimension is given to the decision-taking process; that before a Minister decides whether or not an exemption is required for the purpose of national security, he shall consult the registrar. I have to say to the noble Lord that I am sorry, but it is not practicable, for two reasons: one of principle and one of practice. As I said in responding last Session to an amendment to Clause 27, national security data are in a field all of their own. They are of a particular sensitivity, and the number of people with access to them must be kept to the absolute minimum; that is in the interests of the nation as a whole. I know that in other countries some other intervention is provided, but as the noble Lord has not raised that matter, I will not go into it.
The noble Lord's purpose is that what the registrar shall be consulted about is not the needs implicit in the protection of data subjects, in which he is expert, but

1271
those arising from the protection of security, of which he knows almost nothing. Supposing the registrar were given a role and had to be consulted by the Minister before the requirement for an exemption was decided. How could he properly and constructively express a view?-—because the question he will be asked will be about the needs of national security, not of data protection. The Data Protection Registrar will undoubtedly be a person of eminence and wisdom. He will be a man of integrity, of absolute trustworthiness. But what he will not be is an expert on national security. He will have no qualification or basis or corpus of knowledge on which to express a view as to whether the needs of national security are such as to require action to be taken. Only a Minister can properly do that. It would be wholly wrong—as well as unfair—to give the registrar this really quite inappropriate role. And that is why I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Mishcon: The Committee will appreciate the validity of much of what the noble Lord the Minister has said, but at the same time it will share some of the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. There is no doubt that this is a terrible power which quite innocently can be used in order, for example, to list individuals as security risks, and to do so quite mistakenly. It is not so much a question of the abuse of the power—although that was a very real point that was made by the Minister—as the fact that somebody has made a mistake and that it can go on being repeated, or continue to be on the record of some perfectly innocent citizen, and nobody will ever see it except the Minister who has had a report made to him by somebody.
I shall content myself with the following observation: if this amendment does not commend itself to the Minister and to the Committee for reasons that I think will become apparent, I would hope, if I may say so on behalf of my noble friends, that between now and the Report stage the Minister could give consideration to some other "safe" person, be it an ombudsman or someone else, who has the power to see whether or not records are erroneous and the Minister is, in fact, correctly carrying out the power given to him under the Bill. It is a very large power; it is a very dangerous power.
Lord Swinfen: If there is some other person who has to look into the question, who is actually going to do it? Is he not also going to have to rely upon the same security forces as produced the first report? If it is a question of national security you cannot get an outside agency to look into it because that would be breaking security. I am wondering who the noble Lord anticipates will do the investigation. Will this other person himself go round and do the investigation?
Lord Mishcon: I wanted to make my reply brief and I am going to try to do that in answer to the intervention. The situation is difficult. One does not know whether it will be some person with judicial authority who will have the power to investigate generally and to see, for example, how reliable is the information which is being given in order for certain
1272
classifications to be made. I appreciate that it may have to be a general investigation and not a particular one in all cases, but at least one would know that there was some periodical review of procedure so that the procedure looks as though it is right and safe.
Lord Avebury: I was not even going so far as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I was not demanding that some other person should have the right periodically to scrutinise these records; but I was simply asking that when the Minister signed the certificate which is mentioned in Clause 27(2), he should at least notify the registrar that he proposes to do so and that the registrar, who would have a suitably qualified person on his staff, would give any advice within his power. It was part of my submission that, as the Lindop Committee recommended, the registrar must have a person with the highest possible security classification as a member of his staff to perform these duties, as indeed the Minister reminded us is the case in other countries. However I shall not press that.
I merely ask the Minister between now and the Report stage whether he would be good enough to deal with the point that I made, which is that the certificate which the Minister signs may be lodged within the department and not with the registrar, and therefore no other person besides the Minister and presumably those who gave him the advice that this particular data should be dealt with under Clause 27(1) will even be aware that the exemption has taken place. It was that danger with which I sought to deal in my amendment and which, in the absence of an amendment of this kind, could mean that very large blocks of data were excluded from any consideration whatever by the registrar or supervision of other kinds under Part II of this Bill.
As I said, although there is no suspicion in my mind that anything irregular would happen—not just under the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he is a member of the Cabinet but under any of his colleagues—I thought it was necessary to take precautions against irregularities being committed by some future Government which would be of a less enlightened complexion than the present one.
Lord Elton: I am relieved to find that in his secret heart of hearts the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, regards this as an enlightened Government, because much of his correspondence has suggested the contrary. I can answer one specific point and one general point. On the specific point, the noble Lord is right—the certificates would not be lodged with the registrar. Certificates would be held by the Minister and produced where necessary to provide evidence that the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. That is the general practice where certificates of this sort are concerned. So the noble Lord is right in that.
I am reluctant to give a very convincing undertaking at this stage because we have gone such a long way since the last time the Bill was before us to meet the anxiety of noble Lords that this power should not be misused. Having said that, of course we always take very careful note of what is said.
The noble Lord has addressed himself to a precise and I think probably marginally new area of

1273
concern—at least, he expressed it differently—and I shall certainly take it away, although I do not wish to hearten him with any indication of what I shall do thereafter. But it will be very carefully considered.
Lord Avebury: I certainly do not want to delay your Lordships when there are so many more important amendments to consider later on. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, whether the certificates, which he has explained are maintained within the department, presumably in the Secretary of State's office, will be accessible to any scrutiny whatever, or whether they will only be wheeled out, as I put it, in a case where someone has sought to access the data and it is discovered that it is covered by a certificate under Clause 27(2). Will it only be when somebody asks for forbidden data that the existence of the certificate is discovered, or will there be a list which the registrar or the public may access in the department?
Lord Elton: No, they will not be available for display; but they will be produced as individually required.
Lord Avebury: I should like to give the matter some further thought and perhaps discuss this again on Report. In the meanwhile. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Crime, taxation and immigration control]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 21, line 24, at end insert ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: We now come to the most criticised, universally condemned provision in the Bill, namely, Clause 28. On this occasion and in Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 we seek to delete the part of the clause, and indeed of the Bill, which has come under most attack. As noble Lords will see, the clause provides that:
"Personal data held for any of the following purposes.…
(d) the control of immigration"—
a very wide concept indeed, greatly lacking in particularity—
"are exempt from the subject access provisions in any case in which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in this subsection".
They are listed:

"(a)the prevention of detection of crime;

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(c)the assessment or collection of any tax or duty; or

(d)the control of immigration".

Under the umbrella of these provisions highly confidential and sensitive information could be secretly disclosed to the police, the immigration authorities and others without any indication on the data protection register that anything of the kind was even possible, and of course with no knowledge of what was taking place communicated to the person affected.
We have many objections of substance to this proposal. I can put the matter briefly because we have, to some extent, traversed this ground before. My first objection and that of noble Lords in many parts of the Committee will be that the provision runs contrary to the European convention. That convention simply does not permit derogation from its terms for the benefit of immigration control. There is no reference whatever to immigration control in the convention, and in my submission to endeavour to justify it under Article 9 has no foundation whatever.
Article 9 provides that:
"No exception to the provisions of Articles 5, 6 and 8"—
which provide the safeguards for the data subject—
"of this Convention shall be allowed except within the limits defined in this article. Derogation from the provisions of those articles shall be allowed when such derogation is provided for by the law of the party and constitutes a necessary' measure in a democratic society in the interests of:

(a) protecting state security, public safety, the monetary interests of the state or the suppression of criminal offences; and

(b) protecting the data subjects or the rights and freedoms of others".

The whole purpose of this convention and this machinery, as its terms show, was to extend the safeguards for everyone's rights and fundamental freedoms, and in particular the right to respect for privacy taking account of the increasing flow across frontiers of personal data undergoing automatic processing. Therefore, it is not surprising that the provisions for exceptions should be so carefully restricted.
In our submission, it is an abuse of language to suggest that this reservation of the control of immigration is for the saving of the rights and freedoms of others. On the contrary, it would, or could, impinge upon, and we submit infringe, the rights and freedoms of individuals and in particular the rights and freedoms of those who have come to live among us, who will be the particular objects and subjects of this provision regarding immigration.
It is, we submit, quite grotesque to suggest that restricting subject access to information held by immigration control outside the area of crime is justifiable. When matters of a criminal quality arise we already have included in Clause 28(1)(a):
"the prevention or detection of crime"
Therefore, it cannot fairly and honestly be said that this has to do with matters of prevention or detection of crime. One is forced to ask: what is the purpose of this provision of control of immigration being made the subject of exemption from the protective provisions of this Bill?
As I have said, we think that we shall be in grave danger, putting it moderately, of our being found to be in breach of the convention, thereby undermining the whole purpose of this exercise, which is to ensure that the terms of the convention are adequately and honestly provided for in our legislation. If we fail in that, the benefits we hope to derive from it for our own subjects and, above all, for those involved in the international, commercial, banking, insurance and other fields will be denied. We therefore, putting it briefly, submit that this provision is in danger of being oppressive, deeply worrying to the immigrant

1275
community living among us, and one which is in grave danger of infringing the provisions of the convention, therefore making our adhesion to it unacceptable.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Unlike most other noble Lords in the Committee I do not think that I have spoken on this clause before. I think everybody else has. However, the noble and learned Lord has said enough for me to be brief. From these Benches, and I think from all parts of the Committee, we are ashamed of the fact that this will almost certainly fail to satisfy the convention. We have had too many cases in the past where this has happened. We feel that it is important not to expose ourselves again, particularly in such a disagreeable way.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was discussing this. I think at Second Reading, he said that this was an insult to the black and immigrant population in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, seized on the only possible excuse he could make, which was that the other day there was a Bulgarian who appeared in the newspapers in the same way. I shall not stretch this. The fact that one man is a dark but not coloured immigrant is nothing whatever to do with the argument.
The argument is absolutely clear. Of course this applies to all immigrants of whatever nationality, colour, or anything else, but the fact remains that of those immigrants I cannot give a figure but over 90 per cent, must be from the Caribbean, Africa, India, or South-East Asia and not from Europe. The noble Lord knows this perfectly well. I rub it in because I thought his was a rather feeble reply, and I do not think that he has a better one.
There is not any doubt that this is not—at least in my opinion—a Government intention secretly to annoy the immigrants. It is a purely bureaucratic attempt to avoid possible trouble in one or two rare instances. The instances that the Home Office have given of what possible use you could make of this exemption in relation to immigration to an action which was not criminal are too feeble to go into. They are unusual, unlikely to happen, and extremely unimportant if they do.
I do not think we want to go over the arguments again and again. They are simple. We believe this to be an unnecessary and, in its results, more or less disastrous contribution to the social life of this country, which is now a mixed community, and proud to be so. We have to be careful how we treat people who have not been here and were not bred here all their lives, and who are beginning in different parts of England to settle down extremely well, and in one or two parts are not settling down so well. This is extremely dangerous and entirely unnecessary. I am happy to support the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: There are three points I should like to make to the noble Lord the Minister. He will remember that on Second Reading he made a statement contradicting an instance which I had given earlier. In that statement—and I do not think I am doing him an injustice in telescoping it—the burden of
1276
the statement was contained in these words:
"it does not abolish or diminish any shred of existing civil rights available to our citizens".—[Official Report. 5/7/1983: col. 543.]
I had already pointed out that in the present circumstances an immigrant who is asked for medical data for the purpose of immigration control is given a form which he signs so that the DHSS can obtain the information and pass it on to the Home Office. The question that I want to put to the noble Lord—he did not allow me to intervene in his speech, you will recall—is this. Is it not the case that this clause takes away from an immigrant the right to know that data concerning him, or her, is being obtained by the Home Office?
Is it not the case, as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, that under this clause it is perfectly possible, and will happen, that medical data passed on by the the doctor in perfectly good faith to the computer, which the doctor does not control and does not own, can then be obtained by the Home Office without the knowledge of either the doctor or the patient? It is for this reason that the British Medical Association itself has expressed its concern. That is the second point I want to make, which naturally leads on from the first.
The BMA has informed me that according to its handbook of medical ethics it is stated:
"In all medical records information should be regarded as held for the specific purpose of the continuing care of the patient, and should not be used without appropriate authorisation by the responsible clinician, or the consent of the patient, for any other purpose".
Naturally the BMA and its members are deeply concerned that this clause can breach this first principle of medical ethics of the relationship between the doctor and the patient, and in many cases without the knowledge of either doctor or patient. Is this not, to return to my first point, a diminution of the existing rights of the immigrant population?
Thirdly, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has stressed the importance of what we consider to be, and what many lawyers consider to be, a breach in the European Data Protection Convention, and he has quoted it. I would add to that that, to the best of my knowledge, no other European country has legislation which, for the purpose of immigration control, exempts the protection of individual privacy so far as computer data are concerned. Why is it necessary in this country? I would suggest that if it is not necessary in the rest of Europe, it would be wise for the Government to consider whether they should continue to thrust forward what, as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has already pointed out, has been seen as a highly objectionable clause on all sides by those who have considered this issue since we started debating it early this year.
Lastly. I make an urgent and desperate plea to the Minister that as the issue of immigration control is not in any way connected with crime, with breach of the law or with fraud, he could tell the Committee this afternoon that he will reconsider this question between now and Report stage, and particularly consider whether he cannot remove this objectionable, insulting linking of the purposes of immigration control with criminal and fraudulent activities. If he thinks it is essential still to have some form of immigration control within the Bill then he should separate if from

1277
these, have a clearer definition of it and remove the objectionable aspect. Not only Members of your Lordships' House but members of many other organisations—who frequently support his own party—have found it just as objectionable as we have.
Otherwise it would seem as though the Government consider that there is a special kind of morality which is peculiar to immigrants. They do not have to break the law or be guilty of fraud, but they may do things that the Government do not like or which the Government do not think are right, but which the Government have covered here in a dangerously wide and loose phrase which can only bring pain and insecurity and, from these Benches, anger if they are persisted with.
Lord Swinfen: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was in the Chamber when this Bill was before your Lordships previously when I asked the Minister whether each Ministry would have to register separately. I was told that they would and that computers were not all registered as one under one system by the Government.
On Tuesday of this week we were told, in answer to a question of mine, that if computers were interlinked in any way, that linkage would also have to be registered. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord will find that the Home Office is unable to ask its computers about details of medical records of immigrants or anyone else because it would have to have permission to ask the Department of Health and Social Security. If the two computers were connected that would be public knowledge because they would have to be registered.
Lord Avebury: To make one remark on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, it is not necessary for computers to be linked for information to be transferred from one to another. It can be done by other means, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will be aware. We are talking here about the subject access provisions. We shall come on to the subject of transfer of data from one system to another when we discuss Clause 28(2). The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has already said most eloquently everything that needs to be said about subject access. I need add very little to the remarks that he made because I am sure the Committee would like to reach a decision. It is about the fourth time that we have discussed the matter and it is unlikely that at this late stage I could produce any new points that the Minister has not yet considered.
I rose to my feet to give the noble and learned Lord my support and to say that when on the last amendment I was talking about the possibility that a less enlightened regime might at some future date take office, I can hardly imagine that, whatever its nature would be, it could pass a measure that was more horrific in its possible consequences than Clause 28. Therefore, I entirely support what the noble and learned Lord has said. I hope that your Lordships will take action to see that this provision is struck out of the Bill.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Elton: Although as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made abundantly clear this is a very
1278
familiar issue, I have listened with the greatest of interest to the arguments put forward by noble Lords on matters that are both very complex and, I readily concede, highly sensitive.
Your Lordships will be aware from lengthy exchanges on this subject when we dealt with it under the earlier Bill of why computer records are a necessary part of immigration control. The immigration officials handle a very large flow of individuals through our entry ports. They also deal with a considerable number of applications from foreign nationals for an extension of stay and other matters. Ready access to records is clearly essential for this purpose and the need to call them up swiftly, efficiently and economically makes a computer a necessary instrument.
Most of this information is purely factual and routine. It will be of little but administrative interest, and it will be freely accessible to the data subject in the normal way. But some of it will be very different in character. It may relate, for instance, to smuggling or other criminal activities. Nobody in this House would want those activities to go unhindered. That is why the Bill carries exemptions for the apprehension and prosecution of offenders from both the subject access and the non-disclosure provisions. Their Lordships' amendment is not concerned with those. A very few computer entries include Revenue matters; a history, perhaps, of tax evasion. Those are similarly and properly exempted and, similarly, the amendment leaves the exemptions intact.
Between the very large number of entries that are perfectly uninteresting and routine and the much smaller number of which the criminal or fiscal content carries exemption, lies a third category, also a small one, upon which the present amendment bears. That category is made up of entries which contain information about the data subject which does not relate to the prevention or detection of crime, to the apprehension and prosecution of offenders or to the assessment or collection of any tax or duty, but which reveals that the person in question is not, or may not be, qualified to enter or remain here under the immigration rules. That category also carries exemption under the Bill and it is that exemption which the amendment seeks to remove.
No one looking at the size of these islands, and at the number of people who at present live somewhere else but who would like to live here, can doubt that control of immigration is not only desirable but essential. Our discussion is not about that. It is about how it should be done. At this stage I must ask your Lordships to consider immigration officials not only as keepers of the gates of this country, admitting those with a right to come here and remain, and turning others away; we have to see them also as the guardians of the principles of nationality and right to reside. Their duty is to discover those who have entered this country and settled here without the right to do so—stowaways in the ship of state. It is the success of both sorts of official activity together that serves not only to detect those who breach the regulations but also to deter attempts to do so by large numbers of others.
That deterrence is an essential part of the means by which the state protects its individual citizens from the encroachment upon their rights and freedoms that an

1279
ineffectively controlled flow of immigrants would undoubtedly produce. It is for this purpose that the Bill makes exemptions. The first is exemption from subject access by people concerned with illegal entry or residence in this country to personal data held by the authorities which would reveal to them the extent to which the authorities were aware of them and of the means of identifying them. The second is exemption from the non-disclosure provisions, so that people holding data necessary either for the officials I have called "the gate-keepers" or for those I called "the guardians" are free to pass it to them if they so wish.
At that point, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that there are no rights at present about the use of information; there are only certain voluntarily observed administrative arrangements by the Department of Health and Social Security, doctors, or whoever holds the information. The exemption in the Bill allows those arrangements to continue just as they do now, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Home Office will certainly continue to obtain the written consent of the person concerned before medical information is sought from his doctor.
The number of individual cases altogether will not be large but the public interest at stake is very large indeed. When I last addressed your Lordships on an amendment to the same effect, your Lordships made it clear that they well understood the reasons of Her Majesty's Government for making these exemptions. They did so on the basis of the arguments I put before your Lordships today, supported by others in more detail that I have not advanced. I hope that your Lordships will not forget that this issue was decided once before.
I have outlined the central arguments against the amendment and I have explained the case for the exemptions and why we believe they contribute to the protection of the rights and freedoms of our individual citizens. Without elaborating further on that side of the equation, let us look at the other. As I have said, I have listened to it with care. Many individual points have been made, some perhaps with a good deal of hidden complexity; but the overall impression I have got is of a deep anxiety that powers are being taken in the Bill which, though they may be little used, give a great many of our own citizens a feeling that records about them are being secretly kept, perhaps to their detriment, and that information about them is being secretly sought, perhaps to their very great harm. Noble Lords have been at pains to suggest that the whole weight of this anxiety and this part of the Bill is directed against black and coloured people. They have said that they would thus feel themselves to be discriminated against by the very state which, in another statute, declares such discrimination to be totally unacceptable.
I believe those fears to be entirely misplaced. The regulations, and therefore the exemptions, bear equally upon those who come to us from every corner of the globe and they bear also, incidentally, upon whites as well as blacks who may be involved in immigration rackets. But be that as it may, we recognise the anxiety expressed by noble Lords and we recognise that, ill-founded though it is, it may be reflected and shared (as the noble and learned Lord.
1280
Lord Elwyn-Jones, has suggested) in important parts of our own community outside this Chamber. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, is a matter of the gravest importance. I do not wish, therefore, to sweep aside everything that has been said in favour of this amendment, even though some of it has been very wide of the mark. We would rather take time to reflect further on everything that has been said on this issue by your Lordships and to consider, as we have been asked to do, whether this anxiety can be in some way allayed. I very much hope therefore that noble Lords opposite will forbear to press their amendment to a Division this afternoon.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point? He said that, although there were a number of aspects which did not involve breaking the law, it was important for the immigration authorities to know them. I do not know what they would be. But if they do not break the law why should they not say so? Why must they conceal from the data subject that they want to know whether he had an aunt in Timbuktu or somewhere? To me, the noble Lord has made no case at all and I think that before we finally vote, whether now or on Report, we must have an explanation. It really has no meaning whatever. If the immigration authorities think that somebody may be trying to get here, or approach his cousin, or something of that sort, surely if it is not illegal they can say, "We are trying to find out because we thought you wanted to approach your cousin". I cannot understand it at all.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Can I perhaps save the noble Lord from getting up twice by adding to this before he sits down? Can he clarify absolutely crystal clearly whether I heard him aright when he said that the Home Office, before asking for medical information for the purpose of immigration control, would ask the permission of the doctor? Secondly, would he address himself for a moment to the question I asked him as to why it is necessary for the United Kingdom to include this exemption under the term of immigration control, when no other European country does so?
Lord Elton: I think the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, directed your Lordships' attention was the issue that criminal information was already covered by exemptions and that non-criminal information must be so innocuous that there is no harm in revealing to the person to whom it related that it was being sought. In fact, as I understand it, the regulations applying to those who are and who are not entitled to live in this country are complex and are not entirely a part of the criminal law. There are occasions when people in this country seek to foster the introduction or the concealment in this country of people not entitled to be here. It is not in the interests of controlling such activities to reveal at the outset of an inquiry that this information is being sought.
If the requirements were a part of the criminal law, the noble Lord would have no difficulty in following the argument, if he will forgive me. The fact that they are not does not make them any less important for the regulation of the people who come to live in this

1281
country and who are not entitled so to do. I suppose it would be possible to make them criminally enforceable. I do not put that forward as Government policy because it would be a draconian measure; all I am saying is that where immigration officials need to seek out operations—where there are spurious language schools, for instance—it does not make a lot of sense to announce the beginning of the inquiry by a loud knock on the door and to say, "We are asking questions about you".
As to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I can indeed repeat what I said: the Home Office will certainly continue to obtain the written consent of the person concerned before medical information is sought from his doctor. As to why other countries do not have exactly similar legislation, I can only say that they do not have exactly similar circumstances to cope with.
Having said all that, may I remind your Lordships that we are aware of the general anxiety which lies behind this amendment. We have taken serious note of it, afresh, as a result of your Lordships' concern. Your Lordships' earlier concern may have done something to heighten that anxiety; I know not. But we see this as a real issue. It would be quite wrong—and I hope that your Lordships will not put me in the position of having to do this—to try to slam the door on consideration of this by marching firmly into the Lobbies against it. But if that is what noble Lords opposite want us to do, then I shall have to advise my noble friends so to do. I think it would be wise that I should take this to my right honourable friend; that we should consider developments in this now familiar but no less sensitive and important field in the spirit we have been asked to do; and that is what I hope noble Lords opposite will decide.
Lord Mishcon: I am perfectly sure that the Committee will have heard with a great degree of pleasure and, if I may say so, with quite a degree of admiration what the noble Lord the Minister has said. I know he will have in mind that not only is this introduction of immigration control causing a great deal of concern, but it is a new measure in this Bill in the sense that when the Government's White Paper came out and the question of exemptions was thought of in regard to subject access and non-disclosure, immigration control was not mentioned at all. It is significant that that should be so, and that the White Paper went on to say, so far as I remember, that the exceptions to the rule must be made as small and as few as possible.
I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister will bear with me for a moment, if I take the liberty on behalf of my noble friends of saying that we welcome what he has said. We are not anxious to have a Division for the sake of a Division. What we are most anxious about, bearing in mind especially that your Lordships will not further consider this Bill until next October at Report stage, is to know where we have got to.
In these circumstances, could the Minister help us by saying whether the further consideration which he will be giving with his right honourable friend will include the possibility of taking this immigration control out of the exemptions that we have been discussing? Obviously, I do not ask him for an undertaking in advance that that will be the result, but
1282
is he prepared to say that the matter that is being reconsidered will be the total exclusion from this clause, or indeed from any other similar clause, of immigration control records? I repeat that I am not asking him to say what will be the result of that reconsideration, but he would help us tremendously in coming to a decision if he could say that that will be the item that he will be reconsidering with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Elton: I shall be very careful in my reply to that quite understandable intervention, because I do not want in any way to inhibit what now takes place. I have said that we are aware of the anxiety to which the amendment is addressed and that we will seek to alleviate that anxiety, if that appears to us both proper and feasible. By what means that might be, I really could not say; and if I were to answer the noble Lord's question in terms I am afraid it could only be read outside this Chamber as making one solution or another more or less likely.
What I will try to do—and I am sufficiently green in matters of administration not even to be able to undertake it—is to see that our amendment, if there is an amendment, when formulated, goes down sufficiently early for the noble Lord to get together with his friends, because I think we shall be dealing with this very soon after we return. I would hope to give him enough time to consider with his friends before we return whether what we are offering is, in fact, what he is looking for. I have gone on for rather a long time. I hope that I have not been too precise.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In view of the indication of the noble Lord on behalf of the Government that, at any rate, a fresh look is being given to this most difficult and very serious problem, we shall await impatiently the arrival of the Fall, and we hope it will include the fall of this proposal in the Bill. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 21. line 31. leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I listened with great pleasure to what the noble Lord the Minister just said, and I certainly hope that when we come on to the next amendments on Clause 28 he will be able to confirm that what he has said applies equally to the nondisclosure provisions as to the subject access provisions of Clause 28. The amendment that I now move deals with the non-disclosure provisions in general, and not with the immigration aspects in particular; but we come on to the immigration aspects in a later amendment, and, of course, the remarks that I am about to make apply to them as they do to the other parts of Clause 28(2).
It seems to me that there is no point in going to the length of a Bill in establishing the machinery of the registrar for the protection of the data subject, and in particular for the enforcement of Principle No. 3 of Schedule 1, which states that,
"Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall not be used or disclosed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes",

1283
and then, in this subsection, encouraging data users to violate that principle by telling them that, otherwise, certain completely different purposes are going to be prejudiced.
The Minister made it clear on Tuesday that, in the Government's opinion, the data user ought to have an unfettered discretion in this matter. He is not to be required to consider whether any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) will actually be prejudiced. He is to give no thought whatsoever to the principles that he will apply until, for example, a police officer appears on his doorstep and asks for the data. The Minister said that the only sensible answer to the question of whether or not the user might wish to disclose under Clause 28(2) is, "I really have no way of knowing until the police, or whoever, come along and ask me." So the data user, having played his cards very close to his chest, in accordance with the Minister's advice, is then faced with the need to make an ad hoc decision on the spot.
I shall take the Minister's example, so that we have no unfair advantage in the argument, by constructing another argument which suits our case better. The Minister's example was of the data user who has a burglary at his premises, and the police come along and say to him that if they had a particular employee's address and they knew whether or not he was off work on a particular day, it might be helpful in pinpointing the identity of the burglar. In the case which the noble Lord was citing, failure to disclose was not likely to prejudice the apprehension of offenders. According to the Minister, the police say only that the information might be helpful, although subsection (2) does not read,
"Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions in any case in which …(b) the disclosure might be helpful for any purpose mentioned in that subsection."
The words used are "likely to prejudice", and they will not be easy for the employer to construe unless, as I said earlier, he takes the word of the officer for it.
Here I think that an interesting question arises, and the noble Lord might help me on this when he comes to reply. What remedy would the data subject have if the employer gave the information to the police officer in that manner, simply on the police officer's unsupported assertion that prejudice was likely to occur in relation to apprehension of offenders? Would he have reasonable grounds for believing that failure to make the disclosure in question would be likely to prejudice any of those matters simply because that was what the officer told him, or should he have taken further steps to satisfy himself that that was so? If he does not have the faintest idea whether or not his failure to disclose would prejudice the apprehension of offenders, is there anybody to whom he can go for advice? Would he be able to ask the registrar? Remember that, if he gets this wrong, he renders himself liable to proceedings for contravening a provision mentioned in Clause 28(3)(a). He will have no defence if the court finds that he did not have reasonable grounds for believing that failure to disclose would prejudice any of those matters. This is a complicated legal question which I should not like to be faced with as an employer, or as any other data user.
There is another question which a data user has to approach. It was the Minister who pointed it out. Does the public interest override the obligation of confidence? How on earth is the data user to make up his mind on that? If his policy is to disclose whenever he is requested to do so by a police officer, or an inspector of taxes, or an immigration officer, relying on their assertion that failure to do so would prejudice any of those matters, he runs the risk, I suggest to your Lordships, that the whole edifice of the Bill may be fatally undermined, because there would then be large-scale disclosure for all of the purposes mentioned in Clause 28. That would result, I suggest, in an evaporation of public confidence in the security of data throughout the whole of commerce and industry, and indeed in the public sector as well.
If, on the other hand, he decides that he is never going to disclose under Clause 28(2), would equally serious consequences follow? I understand that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, for instance, have declared that they would not seek to rely on the protection of Clause 28(2). No doubt they will make this clear when they give particulars to the registrar. Although the Government were not enthusiastic about my earlier amendment, which would have required data users to say whether and, if so, in what circumstances they would disclose for each of the purposes mentioned in Clause 28(1), there is nothing, as I understand it—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to prevent a data user from voluntarily making such a declaration to the registrar.
I think that many, such as the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, would like to take advantage of that in order to reassure their clients. Inspectors of taxes may want to reassert the absolute confidentiality of taxpayers' affairs, except as already provided by statute, and to assist the police in the rare cases of murder and treason. For the rest, the Government are imposing on data users under this section the duty of making judgments which they cannot reasonably be expected to make and which they are ill-equipped to carry out.
So far as Government departments, which are data users also, are concerned, this subsection is inevitably going to deal a very heavy blow to public confidence. In spite of the noble Lord's undertaking that in the case of medical records the permission of the patient would always be sought before the records are accessed, that is only one small part of the anxiety which may be caused to the public if this subsection is not substantially altered. I beg to move.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I wonder whether the Committee would be so kind as to allow me to speak not only to this amendment but also to Amendment No. 41. The view that we take is that Amendment No. 41 seeks to bring about exactly the same result as that which is enshrined in the purpose of Amendment No. 40. The effect of Amendment No. 40, if carried, would be to delete completely the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 28. It would still mean of course that although no reference was made in that part of the Bill to those conditions, disclosure would still be possible under compulsion of law. That is the very wording of Amendment No. 41.

1285
In the submission of those of us who sit on these Benches, the provisions of subsection (2) are quite as objectionable as the provisions of subsection (1). Subsection (1) deals with the right of a data subject. Subsection (2) deals with the authority of a data user to communicate some very volatile information to a third party who may be very hostile to the interests of the data subject—as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has so clearly pointed out.
The area which this particular subsection covers is about as sensitive an area as one could ever have in our society. It is impossible, of course, to list the number of people or, indeed, the types of groups that would be prejudicially affected by this provision if it were allowed to go through unamended. Nevertheless, one can say that it is likely that the doctor-patient relationship will be more affected by this provision than possibly any provision that has ever been passed in any other Act of Parliament. It does not of course legislate to the effect that a doctor must disclose. What it says is that he can disclose. In our submission, it means in many cases that there will be active encouragement to disclose: that a climate will have been created in which it is more likely that disclosure will take place rather than less likely. Nevertheless, what is important is that whereas now millions of confidences are passed to doctors, in the confident knowledge and belief that they will never on any account be passed to anybody else, that confidence can no longer subsist once this provision becomes law.
It is therefore not unnatural that there has been very heavy objection to this provision. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones referred to it on a previous occasion. He spoke of the memorandum which was sent by Sir Norman Lindop's Committee to the Home Office on this matter. The phrase used was this—and this is not the phrase of people who are involved with this legislation in any political partisan way: it is the phrase of people who were involved with the Second Royal Commission Report on this particular matter:
"that it would be a palpable fraud upon the public if this subsection were allowed to become law".
Even stronger were the representations of Sir Douglas Black, the President of the Royal College of Physicians, in a letter which was sent to the Home Secretary in or about March of this year. He was speaking on behalf of a group of associations which included the British Medical Association, the British Association of Social Workers, the British Dental Association, the British Psychological Society, the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine, the Health Visitors' Association, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing. These are the measured terms of Sir Douglas Black's letter:
"The group has asked me to express to you as a matter of urgency their grave concern about the effect of Clause 28(2) of the Bill on the confidentiality of health information and on public confidence in that confidentiality".
I do not think there is anything which anybody in this Committee, with great respect, could say which could possibly add to that very sincere expression of fear on the part of those most distinguished bodies associated with medicine.
As I say, the wording of Amendment No. 41 does not add anything, in effect, to the amendment which
1286
the Committee is now considering. Amendment No. 40. But it does perhaps spell out what the situation would be if subsection (2) were to be deleted completely. The compulsions of law would still remain. It would still be possible for this information to be ordered to be disclosed—for example, by a court making an order under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act or, indeed, by an order made by a court in respect of powers that are enshrined in very many of our fiscal Acts: in Acts relating to import duties and control. All those powers would still remain, as would the general power to issue a subpoena.
The compulsions of law in this realm are very considerable. It is our argument that they are sufficient. By the deletion of this subsection, one avoids driving what would otherwise be a massive salient into the whole structure of this legislation.
Lord Elton:I must begin with an apology because I am going to repeat myself. I explained the need for the exemption in Clause 28(2), and sought to dispel some of the misapprehensions about it, at some length in our Committee consideration of last Session's Bill. I did so again on Report, and I did so once more at Second Reading of the present Bill. I now find myself required to do so yet again. I do not believe that arguments gain strength from constant repetition. At least, that certainly goes for other people's arguments and therefore I accept that it must go for mine as well. But I have no choice, because noble Lords opposite have trod the same measure again and I must join in.
We have before us not one amendment but two. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has said, their effects are identical even if they differ in tone, and I must refer to both. Both discard from the Bill the general exemption of personal data from the nondisclosure rules for particular purposes. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and his ally does so with no gesture of apology for all the difficulties which would then arise, or for all the purposes which would no longer be served. The amendment in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and his friends makes such a gesture. But as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has pointed out, because of the operation of Clause 33(4) it is not so much an apology as a tautology.
The exemptions with which both amendments concern themselves are all those relating to the purposes of Clause 28(1). We are not now considering the particular merits of law enforcement, taxation or immigration control; we are discussing the general principle that there are certain ways in which the state protects the public interest which ought not to be obstructed by introducing a brand new prohibition against citizens willing to assist its agents in their duty. The movers of these amendments want to introduce what is in effect a brand new prohibition. Those who at present innocently hold information which, in the hands of Customs and Excise, could lead to the smashing of an infamous gang of heroin importers are at present at perfect liberty to give that information to the authorities. They can do so without let or hindrance; and they can do so without informing those to whom the information relates either that they are doing so or that they may do so in the future.

1287
To my mind, that is as it should be. If a wholesaler of goods innocently holds information which could lead to the exposure of evasion of duty by the importers of those goods, he is at liberty, as the law now stands, to pass on that information. The same goes for us all. If a crime has been committed or a law evaded we are perfectly free to help put the matter right; whether we are giving the police information to test an alibi, or giving the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or immigration officials the jigsaw pieces they need to help them enforce the laws which we in Parliament have enacted for the greater good of the people. We are free to do so without preliminary notice and without advertisement. We are free also not to do so. That applies to all the information we have—whether it is in our heads, in our diaries, or in our filing cabinets—except in those cases where already the law tells us we must give the information.
The only difference now is that such information may not be in our heads, our diaries or our filing cabinets but may be on our computers. Once there, noble Lords who have spoken say it should be sacrosanct; that the computer should be to the user as the confessional is to the sinner—a safe repository of the most damning as well as the most trivial confidence. They say that only if such people are publicly warned that their fellow citizens may help to apprehend them with a vital clue to the identity of the fraudster who has cheated the Inland Revenue of millions or even hundreds of pounds, of the rapist who has ruined a dozen fives, or of the drug smuggler who has brought thousands in misery to their deaths, will they be at risk of justice and detection.
The same applies to the routine as it does to the exceptional. Information of assistance in investigating a burglary, a road traffic accident or a mugging consisting of no more perhaps than an address, a work record or physical description is equally important to the law enforcement agencies—yet would be equally impeded under the amendments.
Let me say again—as I hope I have made clear before—that there is no question of Clause 28(2) empowering the police or anyone else to require information. I am grateful to noble Lords who now accept this, but there is still such a belief in some quarters—encouraged perhaps by some of the more extravagant claims made at an earlier stage (and not only in your Lordships' House) that, under Clause 28(2), data users are compelled to disclose data.
Lord Avebury: Who said that?
Lord Elton: I always find it charming when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, makes himself heard above my voice when he is seated. He will forgive me if I do not respond.
Lord Avebury: I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us who said it, because nobody in this Committee has ever made such a claim.
Lord Elton: The reactions of people and comments which the noble Lord himself has made suggested that this must be the case, because otherwise there is no explanation of them. But it is a belief that has been
1288
more generally current among many people outside this Committee.
Lord Avebury: That is something quite different.
Lord Elton: I shall be obliged if the noble Lord will let me get on, or else stop me.
Nothing of the sort is the case. Clause 28(2) is 100 per cent, neutral. There is neither encouragement nor legitimisation of such disclosures. Some professional bodies with ethical codes of confidentiality do now recognise, as they have always recognised, that in certain circumstances the public interest will outweigh the obligation of confidence and that information can be given. It is so with Clause 28(2). In the same way, it acknowledges that holders of information can, if they themselves judge it right and proper so to do (and it is a decision entirely for them), disclose data where the interests of crime prevention, and so on, outweigh those of confidentiality. And they can refuse to do so when they do not.
To enable that to happen, the prohibitions on unregistered disclosures which the Bill erects elsewhere will not apply here, as the Bill is now drafted. That leaves the balance of consideration by the burgled data user, or the data user in any other way involved, exactly where it stands at present. It may be difficult for him to decide what to do, but it will be no more difficult than at present. I am really puzzled by the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that this will undermine confidence in the medical profession. They are free under the law to reveal all now; they are free under the law to reveal nothing now. Exactly the same will be the case if this Bill is passed in its present form.
My sorrow is that we have failed to get that across to all the bodies which noble Lords have mentioned and to which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred a moment ago. That is the central issue to which this amendment is addressed, and I believe that it is mistaken.
Before I sit down, may I say two things to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? First, I gave an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, about inquiries by the Home Office. Inadvertently or otherwise, the noble Lord imputed to me an undertaking that all inquiries about health records will be notified to the data subject. I would not at this notice be able to endorse so wide a policy statement; I have merely told the noble Lord what I am in a position to say.
Secondly, I have a note on the position of the data user in deciding whether or not to disclose information. At the end of the day. the user will be able to use as his defence against a prosecution for unauthorised disclosure the fact that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the disclosure would have been likely to cause prejudice: that is spelt out in Clause 28(2). But the key point is that the user is free to make his own decision, as he does now—but he will of course know that if he decides wrongly he may be open to prosecution. That is surely the kind of disincentive to disclosure which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, himself would want.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Avebury: If that is all the noble Lord the Minister has to say then I am extremely disappointed.

1289
He has not answered my direct question at the beginning of my remarks as to whether or not the undertakings he had given the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about subject access provisions also extended to the non-disclosure provisions, because in my opinion they are far more important.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord will be kind enough to give way, I regret that I mislaid my note on that point. The answer is that indeed they do; the consideration extends to the whole of Clause 28 and therefore to both the subsections the noble Lord is interested in.
Lord Avebury: That is certainly a relief, because it will shorten the discussion on the next amendment when we come to consider the question of nondisclosure as it affects immigration records in particular. But, even so, the noble Lord has really not given any guidance to the data user, he has simply repeated the phraseology we find in the Bill, that the data user must have reasonable grounds for believing that any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) are prejudiced if he is to hand over the information.
The noble Lord did not answer the question I put, which is really of great importance for the mass of data users who will have to try to interpret this Bill: that is, whether when an individual police officer, customs officer, tax inspector or immigration officer comes to him and he makes the unsupported assertion that the purposes in question are going to be prejudiced, that will be a sufficient defence when the data user finds himself in court for a breach of confidentiality. If this is the way "reasonable grounds" are to be interpreted it makes the Bill quite simple from the point of view of the data user, but it could encourage such a mass of disclosures as to undermine public confidence in the Bill. That is why I asked the question and it is a very important one.
The second reason for my disappointment with the Minister's answer is that the examples he gave were all drawn from the private sector, whereas the anxiety felt in the minds of the public about the exemptions from non-disclosure provisions relate almost entirely to what may happen in the public sector, to the exchanges the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was talking about earlier between one Government Department and another, and whether or not, because of the permissive character of Clause 28(2), these are going to be widened beyond what is the practice at present. I have already mentioned what the Inland Revenue do, but there is a general principle operating here, which was outlined in the report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, paragraph 94:
"A substantial conflict of public policy is involved in any proposal that information collected under compulsion by an official agency for a specific purpose should be released to any other agency for a different purpose. Although there are some exceptions, the philosophy behind most legislation for at least 50 years has been that when the State takes power to require an individual or firm to surrender a degree of personal or business privacy it gives in return an assurance that the information thus coming into the hands of an official agency will be safeguarded and used for no extraneous purpose. We are aware that there is public anxiety about the transfer of personal information between official agencies and modern methods of data storage have sharpened this anxiety".
That is the crux of the matter: whether or not the information contained in one department is going to be transferred to another under Clause 28(2) without
1290
the knowledge of the data subject and without any remedy being available to him.
Equally, there is the lesser case, which the noble Lord concentrated on, where the private sector data user is asked for information, generally not in the dramatic circumstances the noble Lord outlined where there is some mass conspiracy to smuggle heroin, but when some far lesser problem has arisen in connection with the apprehension of offenders, detection of crime and so on. It is in these smaller cases of a day-to-day nature, thefts and burglaries and so on, which are infinitely more common than the sort of serious crimes the noble Lord mentioned, that the data user will have an impossible task. This is why I believe subsection (2) of Clause 28 as it stands is unworkable and will bring the Bill into disrepute. If the noble Lord is not prepared to accept this amendment, or even to contemplate any amendment which gives the data user proper guidance, we shall have no alternative but to test the feeling of the Committee.
Lord Elton: I quite understand, but I think when the Committee comes to decide it should do so on the right facts. I must return to the first part of the remarks the noble Lord made, rueing the terrible dilemma which will face a data user when the bobby knocks on the door and wants to know whether Fred was at work last Tuesday. This is no more and no less than the terrible dilemma which now faces him if the records are manual; he still has to decide whether the bobby is legitimately after facts or whether he is being misled. He has to rely on his own judgment now and he will have to rely on his own judgment in the future.
It is fair enough to say that this Bill does nothing to resolve that time-honoured dilemma, which has faced people asked to assist the authorities in their inquiries since the authorities started asking them to do so. It may be that legislation for that is overdue; I rather doubt it, but it might be. But that is not what the noble Lord is suggesting; he is suggesting that because of this Bill there is a new difficulty. The only difference is that the information, as I said earlier in my perhaps over-lengthy speech, is not on paper or in a head or in a filing cabinet but on a floppy disc, and it will say whether Fred was there or not. If the noble Lord really thinks that a reason for not assisting the authorities in pursuit of even minor crimes, let alone rape, murder, drug smuggling and so on—I am prepared to leave those on one side because the argument so obviously does not need to be stated—is that people ought not to help the authorities without first telling Fred that they are going to help the authorities, and giving Fred a chance to do a flit, then I think the noble Lord is just wrong-headed and I hope we do divide and we defeat the amendment.
Lord Avebury: If the noble Lord will allow me, the difference is that when the data is on a floppy disc instead of in manual records a wrong decision by a data user renders him liable to proceedings for contravening the provision in Clause 26(3)(a). If it was in a manual form he would not be liable to proceedings. That is the difference which the noble Lord has ignored between the manual and the computer records. But in his second speech he has again ignored the major question of the public sector

1291
user, which is the question uppermost in my mind. The noble Lord has said nothing to make me change my view of these provisions.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As a co-signatory to the amendment, I would prefer not to divide the Committee on this but to consider what the noble Lord has said, because it seems to me that the fact that the liability is exactly the same now as it was before the Bill is a relevant argument. I am not entirely happy. I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and look at it again for Report, because it has been a long and difficult argument and it is rather a complicated situation.
Lord Avebury: Of course, I am perfectly happy to defer to the advice given by my noble friend, so particularly since I do not feel we have reached a satisfactory conclusion on this.
Lord Elton: May I just repeat, because the noble Lord invited me to repeat, the fact that the liabilities are exactly the same now; the informant is already under such a threat as there is in the Bill. That is the point the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has latched on to, and I would like to say that that is valid. I will not go into the other matters the noble Lord raised.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord the Minister could have saved himself the trouble, because I was about to say to my noble friend Lord Donaldson that I felt there was weight in his advice; and particularly because I felt that we had not reached a conclusion on this argument, and it would be desirable to return to it on Report, I was going to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 21. leave out lines 33 to 42. and insert ("the disclosure is made under compulsion of law.")
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. There is nothing that I wish to add. The arguments are strong but would not be added to by repetition. Therefore. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I understand that the noble Lord is seeking to divide the Committee and I merely say that I stand by everything that I said.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amulree. L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ardwick. L.

Briginshaw, L.

Avebury. L.

Brockway, L.

Aylestone. L.

Bruce of Donington. L.

Balogh, L.

Byers, L.

Banks. L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Barrington, V.

Collison, L.

Bernstein, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Beswick. L.

Denington, B.

Birk. B.

Diamond. L.

Bishopston, L.

Donaldson of KJngsbridge. L

1292

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oran, L.

Gaitskell. B.

Peart, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonbv of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwyn, L.

[Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Jacques, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jeger, B.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shackleton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Shinwell, L.

Kagan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kennett, L.

Stone, L.

Kilmarnock. L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill. L.

Leatherland, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Listowel, E.

Walston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigoder. L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mais, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kitchener, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Caccia, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Molson, L.

Chelwood, L.

Morris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfame. L.

Craigavon. V.

Newall, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cromartie, E.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton. L.

Rankeillour, L.

Daventry. V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Reay, L.

Drumalbvn, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, v

Richardson, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Enniskillen, E.

St. Davids, V.

Erroll, E.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale. L.

Gainford, L.

Somers, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stamp, L.

Glanusk, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint

Taylor, L.

Marylebone, L.

Trenchard, V.

Henlev. L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Tryon, L.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Hunt of Fawlev, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 21, line 34, after ("(1)") insert ("(a), (b) or (c)").
The noble Lord said: I can be brief because of the encouraging remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made in dealing with the subject access provisions in Clause 28 and his assurance at the end of the last discussion that what the Government intend to do on this clause would extend to subsection (1) and to subsection (2); that the aspects of this clause which deal with the control of immigration are to be dealt with as a whole and that the proposals which the Government will come up with before we resume in the autumn will cover both aspects of the clause. Therefore, I do not propose to rehearse again what has been said regarding the convention and its non-applicability to immigration control.
The only point I add to what was said earlier on this matter by the noble and learned Lord is that if the Minister looks at German legislation he will find that it is similar to our own. In Germany they have a system of immigration control which depends upon parallel systems of criminal and administrative procedures. The Germans did not find that it was necessary to incorporate immigration control in their data protection Bill. After some little time of operation, they do not consider that a mistake was made and that it ought to have been introduced.
I think the Minister will agree that the Germans have quite an immigration problem. They have to deal with similar questions of a non-criminal nature. They have one problem in particular that does not affect us. Because there is unrestricted entry to West Berlin from the East, it is possible for immigrants to come to Berlin Schonefeld, the airport in East Berlin, to cross from the East to the West, and then to move from West Berlin to the Federal Republic. They may then for several years work in the Federal Republic before the authorities catch up with them and declare that they are not entitled to be there or, at any rate, to take employment. There are large numbers of persons whose presence in the Federal Republic is not entirely lawful but who, as I understand it, may not be subject to criminal proceedings. These would be the equivalent of the Borg-type cases that the Minister will remember we talked about on an earlier occasion.
During the Summer Recess I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to take some advice from the Germans. When he does so, I think he will discover that data protection experts in that country are simply horrified by what is proposed in this Bill and will strongly encourage him to take the steps which have been recommended from this side of the Committee to delete immigration control altogether from the Bill.
Perhaps I might also say just a few words in response to what the Minister said a few minutes ago about the fears that people entertain, as he says unreasonably, that information is being sought, and records kept, secretly, and that regulations bear disproportionately on people belonging to ethnic minorities, when in fact, as he says, in immigration control we are dealing with people who come from all quarters of the globe. Anybody who has had the slightest experience of
1294
dealing with immigration control knows that the whole effort of the immigration and entry certificate officers is concentrated on people who belong to the ethnic minorities. The amount of work which is done on people who come from, say, the United States or Australia is absolutely minimal. If the noble Lord has any doubt about that, I shall send him a print-out from my computer which contains 850-odd cases which I have dealt with. As he knows, when his colleagues in the Home Office are absent he sometimes replies to my letters. The overwhelming majority of those cases concern people from the Indian sub-continent, the Caribbean and Africa—black people and people of ethnic minorities. People of European extraction attract very little attention.
The fear is that the transfers of information into computers concerned with immigration control will overwhelmingly refer to people belonging to the ethnic minorities; but, further than that, that they will not be confined simply to people who are in any way connected with breaches of the law. We know that, because otherwise they would be dealt with under sub-paragraph (a). A great many people on the fringes, as it were, of immigration control will be swept up into the net and will find themselves on the Home Office computers, with consequent harmful effects to themselves which we can only dimly perceive.
One example, which I gave on an earlier occasion, could be that the person concerned applies to become a British citizen and he is refused by the Secretary of State. No reason has to be given to him. Your Lordships will remember the argument that we had on this point on the British Nationality Bill, when on this side of the House we sought to introduce a right of appeal and objective tests for the determination of an application for nationality. But the Government insisted on retaining the complete ministerial discretion. When this ministerial discretion is exercised, one of the facts that may be taken into consideration is the presence or absence of the applicant on the immigration control computer system in Harmondsworth. A person who may be on that system quite innocently, because he is suspected of having been involved in some breach of the immigration law, although no evidence sufficient to take him to a court of law has been found, may be excluded from British citizenship simply by reason of his presence on the computer. He will never even know that this is the reason why he has been refused citizenship.
The consequences are not just to persons who have recently arrived in this country and who are suspected of a breach of the immigration law; they may affect those who have been here for a very long time. Because they belong to ethnic minorities, they may be more likely to be prejudiced than white people. This is why we on this side of the Committee believe that the exemptions on non-disclosure are more harmful than the exemptions on subject access.
We are grateful to the Minister for the assurances that he has given. We look forward to the results of his deliberations during the course of the Summer Recess. I move this amendment now only in the hope that the noble Lord may say a little more about the nature of the consultations that he intends to undertake. To give

1295
him an opportunity of speaking to the Committe on those, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is right in thinking that the considerations he is concerned with will be swept up in the considerations on the earlier amendment which he and his noble friends were good enough to withdraw. Therefore, I do not think there is much point in my referring at length again to the anxieties to which he has referred. My acknowledgment of them was genuine, as was my undertaking to review. I hope it will stand on the record of our consideration of both provisions that this is so, and I shall not return to it.
As to the way in which our considerations will be conducted, I shall of course consider the advice that the noble Lord has given us about looking at the situation in Germany. The noble Lord revealed in his remarks that he knows not only the ropes but the routes, as I always suspected he did. If there is something useful to be learned therefrom, I do not doubt that we shall be able to glean it.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his further assurance on that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 43:
Page 21. line 37, after ("in") insert ("sub-paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of)
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to the one which was moved by my noble friend Lord Wigoder at Report stage in the previous innings. It is in column 683 on 15th March. On that occasion the noble Lord the Minister said that it was the Government's intention further to examine the approach that my noble friend had suggested.
Lord Elton: Is the noble Lord by any chance referring to Amendment No. 44? I think that Amendment No. 43 goes with Amendment No. 42.
Lord Avebury: I am so sorry. I do apologise. Amendment No. 43 goes with Amendment No. 42, and I withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): I presume that the noble Lord does not intend to move Amendment No. 43, so Amendment No. 43 is not moved.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 21. line 37, at end insert—
("and
(c) the data user notifies the Registrar within twenty-eight days of the date of the disclosure and provides a copy of the data disclosed, specifying to whom it was disclosed and for what purpose;")
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord the Minister guessed, I was speaking a moment ago to Amendment No. 44.
The arguments were thoroughly rehearsed by my noble friend Lord Wigoder on the previous occasion. I want only to add to what he said then that several of us have received a letter from the National Association of Health Authorities of England and Wales supporting an amendment on these lines. With the powerful addition of that support to what my noble friend said on the last occasion, we very much hope that the Minister will have decided that the advice he then gave was right. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I fear that I cannot match the noble Lord's admirable brevity. I well recall that at various stages on last Session's Bill the noble Lord and his noble friend moved amendments to the effect that disclosures made under Clause 28(2) should be notified to the registrar, who might then be required to take action of one kind or another. The idea is not without attractions, and they have put it forward in various forms. The data user had to publish details of the disclosures and provide data subjects with a copy of the data about the subject that had been disclosed. At Report stage the provision was reduced to a requirement to notify the registrar, but then there was nothing further that anybody had to do, and on Third Reading the noble Lord was suggesting that the registrar should publish the facts and details of disclosures within 10 years.
The proposition now before us is closest to the second of the three earlier ones. It is suggested that it should be a condition of the Clause 28(2) exemption that the fact of any disclosure, a copy of the data disclosed, and details of the recipient and the purpose of the disclosure, should be notified to the registrar. But no duties are placed on the registrar in respect of any action that he should then take.
I did two things in response to the amendments last time. First, I undertook to look carefully at the proposition of notifying what we came to refer to as "exempt disclosures" to the registrar. When first put to us it was a novel idea. We felt that it deserved close attention. But, secondly, I also laid emphasis on the many difficulties that it raised, and I hope that I was careful enough not to give any false indications. I say that because we spent some considerable time examining the possibility of requiring notifications to be made to the registrar, and as a result we feel, rather regretfully, that the advantages are outweighed by the difficulties.
Under the amendment before us the registrar would receive a notification every time a data user made a disclosure to the police or some other body under Clause 28(2). It would consist of the fact that the disclosure had been made, and would presumably include the name and address of the data user and the date as a minimum, together with a copy of all the data disclosed, a note of the person to whom it was disclosed, and a statement showing for which of the Clause 28(1) purposes it was disclosed. What have been brought home to us in our consideration of the proposition are the bureaucratic procedures that would have to be gone through to sustain the notification mechanism. The user would have to make a note of all the necessary details, copying out the precise information that is disclosed. I do not suppose that he would often have thought it worthwhile to

1297
design computer systems to cope with irregular occurrences such as these. He would then have to file it all, since if the procedure is to have a purpose it is to check at some later date on disclosures. If he does not have a precise record, the user making the disclosure will be unable to confirm just what were the circumstances and details.
But of course it is not only the person making the disclosures who is involved. The recipient of the data will have to go through precisely the same procedure, for he, too, will need to be able to check back at some later date on precisely what occurred. The burden will be greater on him because while most of the data users concerned will be concerned only once or twice, or intermittently, it will be the recipients who will be involved regularly.
Finally there is the registrar. He will have to take receipt of the notifications and in some way process them and scrutinise them. The bureaucratic implications of all that are considerable, and of course the principal victims—those required to devote most manpower and time and effort to this new bureaucratic task—will be, first, the registrar and, secondly, the police, who will be the most frequent recipients of exempt disclosures. We had to consider whether this would be a desirable use of their time.
A further effect arising from all this, and an important one, would be this. The necessity for these procedures would place on users an annoying burden which could act as a disincentive to them. At present they can make disclosures as and when they think fit, without trouble, and this proposal would mean some difficulty and could hamper police work by making the acquisition of even routine information such a form-filling exercise that the holders of the information might be reluctant to help.
These are practical, down-to-earth factors, but none the less real for that. As for the advantages of the amendment, I cannot help feeling that they are a little limited, for it is not at all clear what the registrar is to do with these notifications when he has got them. Since no duties to publish them are imposed, they will presumably act as a basis on which he can monitor and check exempt disclosure. But the notifications will give him very limited information to go on. The fact that user X disclosed to the police on such and such a date Mr. Jones's address for the purposes of the detection of crime will not of itself tell the registrar very much; or the fact that user Y disclosed the names of 10,000 customers who had bought rat poison in the past year —and of course there would have to be a list of 10,000 names together with the report—will not tell him much.
So the prospect, I regret, would seem to be that we would put a lot of work on quite a number of people and dissipate some of the resources of the data protection registrar without producing any very tangible benefits to show for it. Therefore, I cannot help feeling that the gains offered by the amendment, attractive as they are at first blush, are outweighed by the losses. I know that the noble Lord has already thought very often about this point, and therefore I much regret having to ask him whether he would be kind enough to think yet again.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not want to say a lot about this matter, but I think that the noble Lord's advice about how difficult this would be to operate in the computer world is absolutely remote from the facts. All of these things, including stamping the envelope, could be done at the beginning of each entry. This is what computers do. There are a series of functions that have to be carried out. They could all be done by way of a single, though rather complex, order to the computer. The idea that it is labour intensive shows no appreciation at all of what we are talking about. However, I do not wish to encourage my noble friend to press the amendment. I just think that the noble Lord's evasion of it was inadequate.
Lord Elton: I do not know whether "evasion" is the right word; it was meant to be a response. I may be out of date with my mechanics, but we are still left with the registrar (are we not?) opening this vast pile of envelopes and deciding what they tell him. It is very difficult to know what they will tell him, and it is even more difficult from the amendment to know what he would then do about it.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord the Minister is very skilled at producing far-fetched examples. I think that in referring to 10,000 customers buying rat poison he has excelled himself, since one could hardly imagine that the police would be capable of dealing with such a vast amount of information. But it is a useful illustration from one point of view, in that the data user who had such a large number of customers would presumably print out that information from his computer, or he would transfer to the police a disc or a tape which contained that information. If he did that, it would be very simple for him to provide a copy of it. Just as he had printed out the 10,000 names, he could print out two copies of the 10,000 names. I admit that it would involve him in a minor additional expense, but I do not think that the administrative burdens that it would impose on the data user would be all that great.
The noble Lord also very skilfully twisted around what the amendment says. It would not be the recipient of the data who would have to notify the registrar; it would be the data user who made the disclosure. Therefore although, as the noble Lord says, the police will probably be the largest recipients of data disclosed under Clause 28(2), they will not necessarily be the data user who made the largest number of reports to the registrar under this amendment, if it were passed.
However, I certainly do not want to press the matter here. Since the noble Lord has the whole of the Summer Recess in front of him, and obviously he is going to use this very productively in the way that he has already explained, I should like to make a suggestion to him. As he says, the principal anxiety which people have in this matter is about the number of disclosures and their nature. It would perhaps be possible, without going to the extent of requiring data users to make individual reports of this kind, to enable the registrar somehow to provide a statistical picture of the disclosures under Clause 28(2). That would probably be accomplished by a much simpler form of report than the submission of copies as envisaged here.

1299
I would be grateful if the noble Lord can consider that suggestion and so enable us to discuss it, no doubt, before we return to the matter on Report. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord wants to intervene.
Lord Elton: I was about to say that the noble Lord's plans for my summer holiday are beginning to diverge a little from my own. However, I always like to take advice in good heart. I do not want to impose too much work on others. Most of the ground has been gone over previously. If it seems to us that there is ground that has not been gone over and that has been revealed by what the noble Lord suggests and by what the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson, has remarked, we shall certainly look at it. I shall perhaps be writing to the noble Lord if he will give me his holiday address, preferably in the United Kingdom.
Lord Avebury: I assure the Minister that I shall be at my desk throughout the whole of this summer. I shall be delighted to hear from him and to enter into discussions about how the principle behind this amendment can most readily be achieved. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert (", but this subsection does not apply to persons carrying on computer bureaux who provide services in respect of personal data.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I think that this amendment can be taken briefly. It is to avoid the situation where confidential personal data are passed from the data user to computer bureaux and then via the bureaux released to the police and the immigration and tax authorities. As the computer bureaux will have no direct responsibility to the data subject and often will not be aware of the importance of the data that are being handled by them, it seems totally contrary to the data protection principles that they would be able to reveal any information without the knowledge of the data user or of the data subject. It seems to us that it is desirable to avoid the situation which I have indicated could well arise without the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I hope that what I am about to say will address the noble and learned Lord's concern. If it does not, he will have to put me right and I shall return. As Clause 26(3) indicates, the non-disclosure provisions include Clause 5(2)(d), which prohibits unregistered disclosures of personal data by data users; Clause 15, which prohibits disclosures of personal data by computer bureaux without the authority of the data user who holds the data; and, speaking in general terms, any of the principles inconsistent with a disclosure. Thus, where the Bill exempts personal data from the non-disclosure provisions it allows a data user to make an unregistered disclosure and allows a computer bureau to make a disclosure without the authority of the data user. This amendment seeks to disapply the exemption from the non-disclosure provisions in Clause 28(2) in the case of computer bureaux. The effect would be that where the police or some other law enforcement agency approached a computer bureau seeking information in connection
1300
with, say, the prevention or detection of crime, the bureau would be prohibited by law from giving them information without first having sought the authority of the data user.
The argument that seems to underlie the amendment is that only the data user who holds personal data is in a position to judge whether personal data should be disclosed to the police and so on under Clause 28(2). On this argument, a person carrying on a computer bureau cannot be trusted to make a sensible decision on whether data should be disclosed. I fear that in answering this amendment I shall be returning to familar argument.
The Bill before the Committee includes a number of prohibitions and restrictions on the disclosure of personal data which will, in general, regulate access to personal data by third parties. This is obviously an essential part of any legislation designed to give effect to the principles set out in the Council of Europe Convention. But the convention accepts that some interests must override those enshrined in it and the Government are also determined that the legislation should not prejudice the essential work of the various law enforcement agencies, such as the police.
The police and other similar bodies often have to request information from numerous unexpected sources and, if I can hark back to the last exchanges, other people do. too. If a market is suddenly flooded by suspect tinned salmon, for instance, there are large numbers of inquiries to be made. The Government therefore take the view that it is necessary to make exceptions to the various new prohibitions on disclosure. Thus, Clause 28(2) disapplies these prohibitions in specified circumstances. The effect is not to produce some new threat to confidentiality. It is simply to ensure that the position as it exists now, before enactment of the Bill, remains exactly as it is and has been for many years, without difficulty or complaint. This means that when the police ask for information the person concerned will have to judge in the light of any professional or other constraints whether to disclose the data or not.
I do not see sufficient reason to depart from this argument and the policy already embodied in the Bill in the case of computer bureaux. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord to consider a number of points. Before doing so, I should perhaps find out whether I have said enough to address his principal concern.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I think that it might be convenient for me to give careful consideration to what the noble Lord has said. If he would care to amplify his remarks with any further material that would be helpful to determine the matter between now and October, I shall be happy to listen, if it does not put too much burden on him.
Lord Elton: The burden is nothing to me. I fear that it might be too much for the House. Would the noble and learned Lord prefer me to do this now, or by letter?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: By letter.
Lord Elton: With pleasure.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In the light of that, and in the expectation that there will be leisure in which to examine a highly technical point within the long period of time when the noble Lord is working every day in the Houses of Parliament, I shall undertake to look at this question again and return to it in due course. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Health and social work:]
6.38 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 45A:
Leave out Clause 29 and insert the following new clause:
("Health Records.
If a court is satisfied on the application of any person who has made a request under section 21 above that:

(a) the request relates to personal information as to the physical or mental health of the data subject; and

(b) the supply of the information requested is likely to result in physical or mental harm to the data subject or another individual.

the court shall not make an order for the information to be given.").
The noble Lord said: We come to the important question of medical and social work records. Since we last discussed the matter, a number of important recommendations have been made to your Lordships by the Patients' Association, by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and by the Children's Legal Centre. All are very concerned about the width of the exemptions from subject access provisions and the discretion of the Secretary of State provided under Clause 29. This concern relates particularly to medical files under Clause 29(1) and the fact that Clause 29(2) allows Government departments, local authorities, voluntary organisations or "other bodies" to keep automated files of personal information without allowing any access for subjects if the files contain social work information and the Secretary of State makes the appropriate order.
At first sight, that would appear to contradict the European Convention, especially Article 8 which provides that:
"Any person shall be enabled: (a) to establish the existence of an automated personal data file, its main purposes … (b)to obtain at reasonable intervals … confirmation of whether personal data relating to him are stored in the automated data file as well as communication of such data in an intelligible form; (c) to obtain … rectification or erasure of such data; (d) to have a remedy if a request for confirmation or … communication, rectification or erasure … is not complied with".
and so on.
While there are professional bodies, particularly in the medical field, which argue that patients or clients should not have access to their files, I think that the noble Lord will confirm that consumer bodies argue unanimously for access. They cite not only the human rights argument but also the practical advantages of open files, which are greater accuracy, objectivity, and trust between clients and the professionals.
Also, I think the noble Lord will confirm that there have been substantial shifts in professional opinion on this matter over the last few years. For example, the British Association of Social Workers recently made available a copy of their draft report on the Case
1302
Recording Project Group. In the introduction to Chapter 5, entitled "Access to Case Records", the association writes:
"Part of the reason for promoting client access to records is to ensure that clients can check that their privacy is not being invaded by social work records. But that is not the only reason: as a matter of principle, a client who is to be part of social work processes should know what is going on, and involvement in recording is an integral part of that.".
I think the Government themselves have changed their attitude on this matter significantly. The White Paper entitled Special Needs in Education, which preceded the Education Act 1981, said:
"The government agreed with the widely-held view that it would be wrong to require full disclosure to parents of the professional reports lying behind the 'record'."
But when the Education (Special Needs) Regulations 1983 came into force in April, they indicated that the Government had changed their attitude: parents of children with "statements of special educational needs" are given access to all the professional reports on the basis of which local education authorities have made their decisions, as these must, according to the regulations, form part of the statement which is sent to parents.
The Government have also shown some commitment to freedom of information in education by making HMI reports on schools available to parents. So while the majority of social work and medical records are, at present, not held in automated files but are kept manually, there is a trend towards the use of computers and the Government should take the opportunity which is presented by the Bill to extend subject access as far as possible to automated files.
At the time I tabled this amendment I had not seen the discussion documents on client access to social services records which were issued by the Department of Health and Social Security on 14th July. The first major point I should like to put to the Minister is that the timetable set out in these documents is quite impossibly short. I believe that many of your Lordships may not even have been aware of the existence of the documents, let alone have had a chance to read and digest them thoroughly. Moreover, your Lordships could not take proper advice on them at this stage because I understand that the voluntary organisations principally concerned with these records are to meet on Monday week—the end of July—and that leaves only two weeks before the closing date for observations on Paper I, which have to be in by 15th August.
For the benefit of your Lordships who may not have seen these papers, Paper I concerns the general principles on which information might be disclosed to clients from their social services records. Paper II (as regards which more time is available, but still not enough) concerns the procedures whereby clients might be granted access to computerised social services records. The observations on that paper have to be in by 30th September.
The reason given in the document for the timescale on Paper I is that the Liverpool City Council has decided to adopt a policy of wide disclosure with effect from 1st September. I do not really understand this reasoning, because it seems to me that it could be that the Liverpool City Council would adopt wider disclo-

1303
sure than is ultimately provided for in the order and then, of course, it would have to fall in line with whatever decisions were made. In the meanwhile, no great damage is done if the Liverpool City Council wishes to adopt this policy of very wide disclosure. Indeed, it might be a very useful experiment to see whether any damage is done by it before the Government come to make the orders under this clause.
I am certainly not going to argue that all these records should be divulged to clients. The discussion documents set out some important considerations which must be borne in mind. First, there is the question of the protection of the client. It is pointed out quite properly that:
"Some clients would be harmed by reading facts in their case records which may be disturbing to them".
The example is given of elderly persons who may learn that they are not welcome to their own families, or a child who may learn that his parents have a criminal record. There is also the question of the protection of third parties. It points out that a client's case record may include material about third parties, such as members of his immediate family, which would damage reputations or relationships if it became known to the client.
As regards protecting sources of information, the paper points out that social services departments receive information sometimes on the understanding that it will be kept in confidence, or that at least the source will not be revealed to the client. There is also reference to the protection of social workers' confidential judgments. I must admit that I am rather more doubtful about this aspect. However, it is said in the discussion document that:
"It has always been regarded as professional good practice to record provisional views that might in time lead to firm judgments—sometimes warranting statutory action".
Let me point out as an aside that this seems to follow the discussion we had of opinions and intentions at an earlier stage in your Lordships' proceedings, where it was agreed that, if a managing director expressed the opinion that his sales manager drank too much, then that information was accessible to the sales manager. Your Lordships will remember that the CBI was advising that these opinions of a sensitive nature should be expressed as intentions so that they did not have to be divulged. No one said that an employer should be exempt from non-disclosure because some of the opinions he expressed about members of his staff might cause friction or difficulties if the subject access provisions were complied with. I think that that should also be the case as regards social work records. If social workers want to make confidential judgments about their clients and express them in a computerised form, then, just as an employer would expect that to be known to the member of his staff, so the social worker could perhaps expect that this would become known to his client.
Finally, the question of children and parents is dealt with, and it is said that if parents had an absolute right of access to records about their children that would sometimes ignore the fact that the interests of the child and the parents may be separate, and may conflict with one another.
I agree that all these tremendously important considerations have to be borne in mind in deciding in what manner the Secretary of State will exercise his powers under Clause 29. However, I venture to say that it is rather a pity that we could not have had this discussion as part of the proceedings on the Bill instead of leaving it to the order which is to be made later on. I fully accept what the noble Lord the Minister said at an earlier stage; namely, that such an order will be debatable in both Houses and it can be rejected if your Lordships or another place see fit to do so. However, what we cannot do is to amend the order or vary any of its details; we simply have the alternative of accepting it as it stands or rejecting it in its entirety.
Therefore, I take this opportunity to say that I rather wish we had been able to specify more closely how the Secretary of State would exercise his powers under Clause 29; and at the very least we should know, before we reach any finality on this, more about what is in the Minister's mind. That may seem to conflict with what I said about the tightness of the schedule for consultations. I do not expect—and I say this to the Minister now—that we shall reach any conclusions on this matter while the Bill is in your Lordships' House. However, if he would take the opportunity to say a little more about what is in the Government's mind and how they see the restrictions on the use of the powers in Clause 29, it would be very useful in promoting that discussion outside your Lordships' House which is absolutely essential if we are to reach the right decisions on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I know that the Committee is very hungry and I shall be brief. I was about to speak on this matter on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, but my noble friend has tabled an amendment so I shall say just a few words about the amendment. For a good many years I was chairman of the National Committee of the Family Service Units. They are social work units which take the most difficult families in the area and try to sort out their problems. In the days when I was connected with them—which was 10 years or more ago—the reports used to be extremely frank and very often quite unrepeatable, and with very good reason.
Therefore, I rang up the Director-General of the FSUs today, Tim Cook, who is a very experienced social worker in many ways. He said that there will be difficulties about this matter but that the general feeling in his organisation is that social workers are changing their minds. He said that increasingly they feel that as a general rule they should not write down opinions but should write down facts and let the next social worker who takes over form his own conclusion from the facts. I do not think that you can do that entirely, and I think there will always be cases—as this document to which my noble friend has referred makes perfectly clear. I wish I had had time to read it more thoroughly, for I just glanced at it this afternoon. There will be a number of cases which you cannot allow to be passed on.
What worries me is that both my noble friend's amendment and Clause 29 have a very distant approach to what happens to this information. You cannot ask the Secretary of State each time a social worker wants to say "This will be bad for the child".

1305
Nor will the matter necessarily reach the stage of going to court. Both the Bill on the one hand and the amendment on the other seem to leave the way in which the decision is made far too high up the hierarchy to make sense at all. So I do not think it will do as it is. It being so near dinner time, I shall say no more than that, because it seems to me that, if the noble Lord will agree at all, we shall have time to study this document, and the Government will have received the response to it by the Report stage. I think it is likely that the noble Lord would like to change Clause 29 in a way which would suit my noble friend Lord Avebury, myself, and various other people. So adding to the noble Lord's vocational pleasure, I propose to say no more.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Elton: As I explained when we discussed amendments on Clause 29 of last Session's Bill, these order-making powers have been included in order to allow us to undertake full consultations before deciding what, if any, restrictions upon the right of subject access shall be imposed in this area. As your Lordships obviously appreciate, difficult and sensitive issues are involved, issues that were also obvious to the authors of the convention. That is one of the reasons why Article 9(b) permits derogations in the interests of protecting the data subject.
I was to have enlarged on the kind of difficulties that there might be, but that has been done very capably by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and with great close knowledge by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. So I can say that the Government are convinced that there are difficult issues here that should only be resolved after the fullest consultation. On the health side the Government have had the benefit of advice from an Interprofessional Working Group on Access to Personal Health Information, with membership from the medical, nursing, social work and other health professions. The group has welcomed the general principle that individuals should have access to their health records; but it has suggested that unrestricted access could on occasions be harmful. It has proposed therefore that health professionals should have discretion to prepare subjects to receive the information; and that they may sometimes need to be able to withhold information altogether.
The group is of the view however that in those circumstances some avenue of appeal should be available to the individual deprived of his normal entitlement to subject access. The next step will be for the Government to issue a consultative document setting out proposals for the content of an order under Clause 29(1), and work on this is now underway. Obviously these consultations will include representatives of patients as well as those of the health professions. It is also worth noting that the proposals of the interprofessional group are arguably less restrictive than the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. Its approach provides for filtered access in some cases rather than an absolute refusal.
As to social work records, the Department of Health and Social Security has already, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, issued a consultative document discussing the content of the order to be made under Clause 29(2). I must say that I listened to
1306
the noble lord's strictures about the shortage of time in which to consider it with a certain amount of wry amusement as we received his amendment only about 55 hours ago, and our consideration of that has been somewhat restricted. The document has been sent to representatives of clients as well as to the relevant professional bodies. I ought to tell the noble Lord that Paper I, to which he referred and about which he said the time was so short, in fact has nothing to do with data protection as such at all. Although the timescale may be of concern to him, it is not of proper concern to the Committee.
Paper II is to do with orders under Clause 29(2) of the Bill and the timescale there is until the end of September. As I said, it has been sent to representatives of clients as well as to the professions. The two options discussed in the document would involve a right to seek the opinion of an independent social worker where access was refused. The second would involve a further right to contest refusal through the registrar or the courts. Comments on the document have been requested by 30th September, and I think it would be proper if I were to bring to the attention of my honourable friends in another department the comments made by the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson, about the changing style of work in the social work services, although I do not doubt that they may well be aware of it already. It is a very necessary consideration.
In conclusion, we are approaching the issue of subject access to health and social work records with very great caution. There are difficult issues here which cannot be swept aside simply by regarding the right of access as sacrosanct. The order-making powers in Clause 29 are subject to full parliamentary control within the limits rightly described by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. But I hope that the timing of the consultations and the noble Lord's continual presence at his own desk will ensure that he at least is very well armed when we come to discuss this, as I presume we will, at the Report stage.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to add one point. It is very important to remember that records of this kind will be referred to from years ago, so that there must be a retrospective cut. The Bill must not apply to records made before the Bill becomes law.
Lord Elton: I am seized of the point and I am sure that my honourable and right honourable friends will be.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and for mentioning the rights of appeal, which I ought to have dealt with in my opening remarks and which I think are very generally to be welcomed. Where a person is denied access to his medical or social works record obviously there ought to be some procedure for him to go to the registrar or indeed to a court of law. That sounds like a very useful provision.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance that there will be full consultation with bodies representing the interests of patients and clients, and that they have received the two discussion documents to which I have referred. The first document is of as much concern to the Committee as is the second—the

1307
one for which the timeseale for reply is so short—because if the noble Lord would care to look at the contra-indications to disclosure in Paper I, he will find that they are almost identical to those which are given in the second paper dealing with the Data Protection Bill.
Therefore, if some firm decisions were taken on non-disclosure under the circumstances outlined in Paper I, they would inevitably have repercussions on the order which the Secretary of State is ultimately to make. Maybe that is a small quibble. I was grateful to the noble Lord for the general information he gave the Committee and for the approach he is adopting to the consultations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Judicial Appointments and legal professional privilege]:
7 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 22, line 38, at end insert—
("(3) Personal data are exempt from the subject access provisions if the data consist of information which is confidential to journalists' sources.").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 46 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend. We come now to a matter which, so far as this Committee is concerned, we can deal with fairly rapidly, though I have no doubt that the subject of the amendment, the confidentiality of journalists' sources, is one to which not only this Committee but your Lordships' House may return on many occasions. It seems to me at the moment in this particular Bill that there is a potential anomaly in that the Bill now appears to grant exemption for data where legal professional privilege is concerned; but there is as yet no protection for the confidentiality of journalists' sources.
This confidentiality of journalists' notes is already recognised by the courts. It may well be that as and when the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill re-emerges that there might be statutory recognition of that. If that be the case then we will have an anomaly in that this Bill will create an artificial distinction between journalists' notes which are manually recorded and notes which are electronically recorded, although neither journalists nor the organisations employing them exchange confidential information with their competitors.
I am aware that this whole question of the confidentiality of journalists' sources is a complex one in which neither logic nor perhaps right lie wholly on one side or the other. I am also aware that there is some anxiety among journalists about the whole matter of providing a legal definition of what is, or what is not, a journalist. Therefore, I understand that this is not an easy matter. Nevertheless, it is right to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that there is a potential anomaly here in that manual notes might very well be regarded as, as it were, protected whereas notes electronically recorded, and journalists' sources therefore that are electronically recorded and
1308
potentially could be disclosed electronically, are treated rather differently. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I cannot help thinking that this amendment contains something of a contradiction in terms. It speaks of exempting from subject access data consisting of information which is "confidential to journalists' sources". That of course means that if a journalist's source holds data and attaches a label of confidentiality to the data, he can refuse subject access at will. Now, both I and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, qualify as journalists' sources—we have both provided material for stories at one time or another. But surely the noble Lord is not suggesting that for that reason we as data users—and all the thousands of others in the same category—should be able to refuse subject access to data we hold. So we must assume that this is not the purpose of the amendment but merely the product of loose drafting, and that the real purpose is to protect the journalists who may hold data.
Here is the contradiction. If a journalist holds information that is confidential to his source, how has he come by it? It cannot properly be confidential to one person yet given by that person to another. So again we have to translate. Perhaps I might describe briefly what I think the noble Lord is aiming at in this amendment: that is, information that is held by a journalist and was given to him by a source that wishes not to be disclosed.
So let us examine the merits of that amendment. The suggested scenario is that a source goes to a journalist with information about, let us say, one of your Lordships, saying that it must not be revealed who the information comes from. The journalist is a thoroughly modern one who transcribes the information onto a computer and "processes" the resultant data in the terms of Clause 1 of the Bill: that is, builds up a computer file on the noble Lord concerned, using it perhaps to extract information at the press of a button in order to compose a story—saying either what a fine person the noble Lord is or, much less likely, what a villain he is. That is the picture before us. Now. the first thing I have to ask is whether the noble Lord concerned should not have access to the data to check whether the information is accurate, and the rest. I am not aware of the journalistic profession —who are generally in favour of data protection—arguing that they should be excused from one of its principal elements. Indeed, they might fear that they would be accused of double standards if they did. So where is the reason that the subject of journalists' data should have a lesser degree of protection than the subjects of others' data?
It is presumably that the knowledge that subjects will have access will discourage sources from coming forward and giving personal information about people to journalists, because they fear that they will be revealed as the source, and that this will be generally detrimental to the fifth estate. But we have special provision in the Bill to cover that point. In the subject access provisions, Clauses 21(4)(a) and (5) taken together have the effect that users, in giving subject access, do not have to reveal who has given them the information about the subject that they hold. It may be argued that some subjects may be able to deduce

1309
that only so-and-so could have possibly furnished the user with the information he holds. But surely that will apply at the end of the day anyway when the story is published. I do not see how it can be convincingly argued that the fear of a deduction of sources warrants exemption from subject access, when the whole point of the journalist holding the information must be to publish it eventually, when the fear of deduction must be even greater.
A parallel with last Session's Police and Criminal Evidence Bill has been drawn which I must challenge. The Government did amend that Bill to apply a special procedure to material held by journalists when it came to police powers of search and seizure. But this is not a true analogy. The question of the powers of the police to require the production of evidence in the form of material held by journalists is one thing. It is quite another to try to apply the same arguments to whether an individual should be able to have subject access to data about him that a journalist holds on a computer. I applaud the disinterested concern of the noble Lord in seeking to ensure maximum protection for journalists. But I am not sure that they themselves would seek it, particularly since subject access will not oblige them in any case to reveal their sources. I would therefore ask him to think again about this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, how he would define a journalist for this amendment? Would that include freelance journalists or only salaried journalists —journalists working for a certain paper?
Lord Winstanley: I referred to the difficulty of denning a journalist, and I accepted in my earlier remarks that that was one of the problems. I accepted that there were journalists, or perhaps non-journalists, who are a little uneasy about a statutory definition of what is, or is not, a journalist. I can think of a number of ways of doing it. One could have a member of the National Union of Journalists. One could perhaps have a member of the Institute of Journalists. There are many other ways of doing it. But I doubt whether I am the person qualified to give advice to the Committee on a definition of that kind.
May I return to the words of the noble Baroness. I was grateful for that part of her reply which came later in her speech which appeared to give me some reassurance and suggested that the points about which I was anxious—namely, the confidentiality of journalists' sources—was covered elsewhere in the Bill, and she drew my attention to certain clauses of the Bill which I shall look at closely later. However, in the earlier part of her remarks the noble Baroness gave me a somewhat inadequate reply to a later amendment which I have not yet moved. In other words, about people who are perhaps defamed by things which are published and which have previously been stored electronically. That is a matter for later and I do not want to go into that here and now. The noble Baroness referred to people being defamed. The defamation of course would occur on publication. There would then be a remedy through the courts in the ordinary way. That is an entirely separate matter.
In so far as the noble Baroness has given me some reassurance with regard to the confidentiality of
1310
journalists' sources, I had better look at that carefully and consult with those who advise me. With regard to the fact that the amendment is said to have been drafted defectively, I have to plead that it was drafted by somebody who worked for some years in the Public Bill Office but now is employed otherwise. Perhaps your Lordships may think that is wise! I shall nevertheless go back to my sources and seek further advice and consider further what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord takes the course that I think he wishes to take, I wonder if one thing could be clarified by the noble Baroness, whose participation in the Committee's proceedings we all very much welcome. I am not clear about whether there is a specific exemption in the Bill which covers the situation where the source clearly appears on the record that has been made and if there is something in the Bill which enables the data user in this case to tell the data subject that the data subject is entitled to a copy of everything, but not the source which is on the computer. I am not clear about that. If it is not in the Bill a different consideration arises.
Baroness Trumpington: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his kind words. Words of kindness in a hungry House are welcome indeed. If he reads what I was saying and considers Clause 21(4)(a) and Clause 21 (5) he will find the exemption for which he is looking.
If the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will return to his point on a further amendment, as he has suggested, perhaps we might have what is known as a natural break.
Lord Winstanley: Once again I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his brief intervention making the substance of my point rather clearer than I made it earlier. That was precisely the anxiety that I had in mind when I moved the amendment. I have listened to what the noble Baroness said and, as I have said, I will have further thought about it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell: I understand that through the usual channels it has been agreed that this might be a convenient moment for the main protagonists in the business of the Committee to break for dinner.
I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the next business is taken, I wonder whether the noble Lord will indicate at what time we shall return to the business on the Data Protection Bill?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord and indeed to many hungry and vociferous noble Members of your Lordships' House. I understand the usual channels agreed that the period should be three-quarters of an hour, 45 minutes. I believe that your

1311
Lordships would wish that we should give the protagonists an extra minute so perhaps we should re-commence further business on the Bill at eight o'clock.

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (Section 111) Amendment Order 1983
7.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (Section 111) Amendment Order 1983 be approved. One of the difficulties about becoming a Member of your Lordships' House while a Government Minister is that one does not have the opportunity of selecting one's own occasion to make one's first remarks at your Dispatch Box. Devoted as I am to the cause of restraint where the spending of taxpayers' or ratepayers' money is concerned, I have to admit that the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (Section 111) Amendment Order 1983 would not have been among the front runners were I to have chosen my own subject on this occasion. Nevertheless, I realise that it is an essential order and I am privileged to have the opportunity of asking your Lordships to approve it.
For the past 13 years I was in another place where I had the honour of representing the old constituency of Ross and Cromarty. That was terminated at the last election and I am now deeply aware of the privilege which has made it possible for me to continue to serve in your Lordships' House.
The title of this order describes its purpose, which is to amend Section 111 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. This section enables the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to rates. I shall come to these powers presently. But your Lordships may find it helpful if I first of all describe briefly the powers under which the order itself is made. These are contained in Section 5(6) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. Subsection (6) is part of the measures introduced last year into Section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 by Section 1 of Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, and it provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, repeal or amend any enactment relating to the determination, levy or payment of a rate and where such is affected by a determination (or deemed determination) under section 5(4) (b)
An order made under subsection (6) has no effect until approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. If approved this order will amend primary legislation. The statute in question is Section 111(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to rates. Under Section 108 of that Act rates are to be determined by local authorities only once a year in advance of each financial year. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981 introduced a new provision into the 1973 Act (Section 108A(1)) which allowed a local authority to determine a lower rate than that determined under
1312
Section 108. The 1981 Act also amended the 1973 Act to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations as regards a lower rate determined under Section 108A(1) for the repayment of sums paid in respect of a rate determined under Section 108 and for the cost of levying and collecting the lower rate to be borne by the authority. This new provision became paragraph (f)of subsection (1) of Section 111.
No such provision was made by the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 with regard to a rate determined by an authority under Section 5 of the 1966 Act as amended by the 1982 Act and the purpose of this order is to make it clear and beyond doubt that the Secretary of State may with regard to a rate determined under Section 5(4)(b) make a regulation, under the new provision in Section 111 (f) with regard to the repayment of sums paid under Section 108 and to the cost of levying and collection to be borne by the authority concerned. This order is a minor technical paving step which will allow measures to be put into effect which Parliament have already approved in principle and to which specific approval will be sought in another place. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the Order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
7.19 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it falls to me to greet the noble Lord after his maiden speech—a maiden speech at the Dispatch Box. I think it is the longest speech I have heard him make. I have known him for 13 years, and for a long time I remember him in the Scottish Grand Committee, when the 1973 Act to which he refers so dramatically and so tellingly, was going through the House. I remember how I used to look across and see him, and as soon as I saw the eyes glisten and him edging on his seat, I knew that he was about to get up and make his usual speech—
"I beg to move that the Question be now put."
He was a Whip at that time; and now here he is, a living symbol of the defeat of his Government in Scotland. He was not the only Minister who was defeated in Scotland; and may I remind this crowded House that of the 72 seats in Scotland, Labour won 41, the Tories won—was it 21?—the Alliance won, I think, eight and the SDP two. So wherever the Government have a mandate, it is not in Scotland.
The noble Lord has become the successor of not one of the oldest offices in Scotland—in fact it has been in existence just over 32 years, the office of Minister of State for Scotland. But I should warn him that nine of the 10 holders are still in the House; and when you add to that four ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland and at least two former Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, the noble Lord will realise just exactly what he has to put up with in terms of the experience that is around. He is not the first defeated Tory Minister who has found a comfortable and secure refuge in this House, so he has not broken any records. Nor yet is he the first to receive the consolation prize of being Minister of State for Scotland. I could name two who, having been defeated at a general election, suddenly appeared here as Ministers of State for Scotland; so he is following a tradition.

1313
But let him not think that this is a dead-end job that he has. It is not the end of the political road—far from it. I remember Lady Tweedsmuir, who is the only one of the 10 who is no longer with us. She went on to shine at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Then there was the first of them all; he became Prime Minister. He was known in those days as Sir Alec Douglas Home. He was the first Minister of State for Scotland, and I am sorry that my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is not in his place, because he was one of the longest serving Ministers of State. Then there is the last man who has followed: he has been promoted to Northern Ireland. I refer to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. So let the noble Lord think of all these glittering prizes that are ahead of him. He has been the victim of his own Party's failure in Scotland. There may have been an element of redistribution in this, but I can assure him that the Member who formerly had Skye did not want to lose it. He regarded it as a good fall-back position for Liberals. I remember of course the man that he defeated, Alasdair Mackenzie—a very nice good Scotsman—and how he must have felt. There was no consolation prize for him in the shape of a seat in the House of Lords.
The new Minister brings to Scottish Affairs some Ministerial experience, and we are glad of that. He has some insight into the wayward ways and the mysterious ways of the Scottish Office, because he was a Scottish Whip for quite a time. There is no doubt that he has first-hand knowledge of Scotland's problems. No-one knows better than he the mood of Scotland at the present time. I sincerely hope that he will bring a sense of purpose to the Scottish Office, as we have known it over the years. I, too, have an advantage: he knows me and he knows what a reasonable man I am. He knows that I may sometimes be wrong (but I am always right!) and I look forward very, very much to seeing him handling Scottish affairs in this House. He will have a couple of tea boys occasionally. He will have the noble Lord, Lord Lyell; and, when he can free himself from the responsibilities of the Crown Office, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will probably come in too to lend a hand. So the noble Lord need not worry. I think he will find this a very much friendlier place that the other Chamber and I hope that he does well.
I am very glad to welcome my noble friend Lord Strathclyde who is now in his seat. He will be glad to know that I gave him an honourable mention in his absence, but he can read about that in Hansard. I ask him, please do not write to me about it. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, said that this order is not the kind of thing he would have picked and that he might have picked something more important. But there cannot be anything more important than this. He finished by saying that this was just a little technical amendment. It is not, you know. I objected to the Government taking the power that it took in the 1981 Act, which it repeated in the 1982 Act—that Section 5(6) which gives the Secretary of State this power, which it is not to make regulations; it is the power to amend primary legislation. Those were the words that were used by Lord Ancram in another place when he mentioned this particular order.
Instead of bringing in primary legislation, the Government took the unusual power of amending by
1314
order. I objected to it at the time and I object now. I object even more, because he certainly wandered through all these statutes, though I am not absolutely sure that he is entirely familiar with all of them because he had pre-occupations elsewhere. But they all deal with the important business of local authorities and rates. There was a time under the 1966 Act when the local authority had a fair amount of freedom, and it is a freedom that is pretty basic to local authorities—the right to determine their own expenditure and to raise money to meet that expenditure. Take away that power, take that power to the central government, and local authority becomes meaningless from a democratic point of view.
What we have had since 1979 is decision after decision backed up by new Acts of Parliament which went through this House and which have extended the power of the Secretary of State in respect of local authorities. There was a power—I think it went back to 1929 and was consolidated within the 1969 Act, having been carried through all the various Acts—which gave the Government the right to reduce a grant if the expenditure of a local authority proved unreasonable and excessive. But he could not do that until he had proved it was unreasonable, after they had spent the money. Nobody ever applied that sanction to local authorities in all that time. Then the Government said that they were going to do it and they discovered of course that this was not good enough; so they decided to reduce the grant or any element of a grant purely and simply on the basis of what their estimated expenditure was going to be. Once you take a Government into the realm of determining the estimated expenditure and reducing a grant because they think it is excessive, that is a very serious matter. But the ratepayers were still penalised and the Treasury was that bit better off by the grant that was withheld.
So they started thinking again and said, "We will make them give the money back". They decided that they would take powers in the 1981 Act so that a local authority could reduce its rates in the middle of a year, after the usual time for fixing rates. Some of the local authorities did, and some of them did not. But then they discovered that they required still more power, which they took in the 1982 Act, under which the Secretary of State could determine exactly the amount of the reduction of the rate.
The report has to go through the House of Commons—it does not come to this House—and it is being dealt with here at the present time. There are four orders in respect of Glasgow, Stirling, Kirkcaldy and Lothian, and if they do not do what the Secretary of State wants within 26 days then it is deemed to have been done. I do not know what happens thereafter, but I suppose that if they do not put it into operation they are in default and can be charged by any individual ratepayer with illegally withholding a reduction of rates from him.
This is a serious matter, and it is what this order is about. Until this order is passed—it is an affirmative order, and it has already been passed by another place, but it has to be passed here—the Government cannot proceed with the regulations. Although they have certain power, they do not have power to make the regulations. My first question is: why on earth did the

1315
far-seeing Scottish Office civil servants and Ministers not see what had to be done? I cannot blame the noble Lord because he was not there, and if he had been there he would probably have seen it like a shot. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is a bit to blame here, too. He is the legal giant among them. They were his draftsmen who were drawing up this Bill. Why did they not see that what had to be done in 1981 would also have to be done in 1982 to cover the regulations, if they had to apply for a report and make a local authority reduce its rate poundage? It is a very serious matter.
Now this House is in a position where, if we vote against this order, it will be very difficult for the Secretary of State to proceed with his punitive expedition against Lothian, Stirling, Kirkcaldy and Glasgow. So the question is: is he justified in doing what he is doing? I do not suppose that the Government have finished yet. We shall probably have another local government Bill later this year. They will discover some further flaw, some noose that they have not tightened, and will make a further attempt to strangle local authorities.
We have a very intricate web which has been spun around local authorities and which is denying them the democratic freedom that people expect. They are forcing Glasgow to reduce their rates by 3p in the pound; in the case of Stirling it is 2p., as it is for Kirkcaldy; and in the case of Lothian it is 6p. I think that, in Glasgow, it is 19p per week which the average householder will get back. What they lose for that is something that will be determined. Libraries will probably not open on certain days of the week; there will be a slowing-up in dealing with planning applications; and other departments, such as recreation, will be affected—all because the Secretary of State has decided that, in his opinion, their expenditure is unreasonable and excessive.
Just before the general election there was a meeting with Glasgow Corporation and the Secretary of State discovered that he had made a mistake of £4 million out of £10 million. So instead of reducing the rates by 5p, he said that 3p would do. But what about all the other things that are there? We shall be opening in Glasgow—and I daresay that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, will be delighted because of her connection and her husband's connection—the Burrell Collection and the new art gallery. It is one of the finest in Britain. The Government want it open, and they paid half the cost of it. I was Secretary of State at the time when we came to the formula. Glasgow has an additional £1 million, and we can understand it, because they have to staff the gallery, heat it and maintain it. That is expenditure which is additional to last year's. Is that excessive and unreasonable? Or are they to open the museum on one day and close it the next because the Government say, "You are spending more than last year"? As a matter of fact, they are not spending very much more than last year, when this £4 million is extracted.
The Minister mentioned only Section 1 of the 1982 Act, which was an amendment of Section 5 of the 1966 Act, but the rest of that Act transferred responsibilities from regions to districts. Tourism now comes under Glasgow, which it did not last year. Recreation also comes under Glasgow, which it did
1316
not last year. Having transferred the functions, are the Government now to deny them the opportunity to raise the additional monies? This is crazy. In the last Session of Parliament we had a Mental Health Act. I remember the feeling of triumph in your Lordships' House when we got the Government to agree that there should be mandatory after-care attention for mental health patients. What is the use of loading new functions on to local authorities if the Government say, "If you are going to spend money on that, it is excessive and unreasonable"? This is the reality of life in local authorities today.
Of course, the rates are going up, but why are they going up? I ask your Lordships to ask the Chamber of Commerce in Glasgow why the rates are going up. They are going up because the Government are cutting their share of the cost. The noble Lord. Lord Lyell, is shaking his head. I will gladly sit down. We have three quarters of an hour.
Lord Lyell: It is less.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We have three-quarters of an hour. If the noble Lord wants to intervene and make a telling point, I shall be delighted to handle him and manhandle him after he has sat down again.
Lord Lyell: Order!
Lord Ross of Marnock: Five years ago the Government's share of reckonable expenditure—and it is the Government who fix that expenditure—was 68½ per cent, for the whole of Scotland. What is it today? It is 61 per cent. The local authorities meet the rest. How do they do that? Even though they are spending the same amount of money, if the Government cut down their share the rates automatically and inevitably go up. That is happening all over Scotland. The Government put out guidelines. There are 65 local authorities, and 62 of them are above the guidelines. But there are only four who are singled out for this penal attack by the Government.
There was another one—Shetlands. It was going to spend far more than Glasgow, Lothian or anywhere else, and then the Government met and said, "We will not take any action against the Shetlands". I think they were afraid that action might have been taken against oil in the Shetlands. Oil is a very big weapon indeed. Without giving any reason, certainly without making any comparison with other local authorities, the Government let Shetland off the hook. The rates will still go up in Shetland. But what about Glasgow? Glasgow's increased expenditure this year is lower than the average in Scotland. Its increased expenditure per head of population is lower than the average in Scotland.
A Question was asked on 30th June in the other place. The answer is illuminating. One of the things that the Secretary of State is concerned about is Glasgow's record. He was asked exactly how expenditure in Glasgow compares with expenditure five years ago. His answer was that expenditure on services in Glasgow, in constant terms, at November 1982 prices from 1979–80 to 1983–84 was as follows: in 1979–80 the amount spent by Glasgow on services was £82·27 million, while in 1983–84 this excessively

1317
extravagant local authority spent not £82·27 million but £82·92 million. Is this runaway expenditure? Of course it is not. There is a mistake in that figure of £4 million, which the Secretary of State admitted. This means that Glasgow is spending less.
The reason why the rates are going up is the Government's cut in rate support grant. This is crazy. Four reports have been published in respect of which these regulations will eventually be made. Shall we see those regulations when they are made? According to Section 111 the Government will have to consult the local authority associations. During the same period, Scottish Office expenditure went up by 12 per cent, while Glasgow's and Scottish local government expenditure went down. So the last people to come here and ask for regulations in order further to strangle these four local authorities are the Scottish Office.
In support of their case the Government are supposed by statute to pick out other local authorities with which to make comparisons. When one looks at the comparisons one finds that for the third time they are trying to hammer Stirling. The Government usually take four different local authorities for the purpose of comparison. They are on their tenth one with Stirling. They change their comparisons every year. It is the old rate support grant argument. You start at the end; then you find your comparisons afterwards so that you get the result you want. If I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, to compare similar local authorities with the district of Glasgow, which is the biggest local authority district in the whole of Scotland, would she say that it is right to compare Glasgow with Falkirk, Glasgow with Cumbernauld, Glasgow with Clydebank? Is there any just comparison relating to population, expenditure per head and services? It is crazy. We have moved away from rational thought in respect of local authority expenditure into the realms of fantasy, which arises purely from the whim of the Secretary of State.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, realises the kind of morass he has stumbled into. This is not the last of our arguments; it is only the beginning of our arguments. The noble Lord knows how reasonable I am. If he were convinced that I am right—and I am sure he is—he would get up and say, "In view of the speech of the noble Lord, I shall withdraw this motion and consult the Secretary of State". A 2p reduction in Stirling, a 2p reduction in Kirkcaldy and then in Glasgow—all this is undermining the spirit of local government democracy in Scotland. That is what is at stake. If we go much further down this road, I do not know whom we shall get to serve local government. No self-respecting person will serve local government if he knows that every decision he makes will be supplanted by a direction from the Scottish Office.
How many people in the Scottish Office are now looking after local government in Scotland? I know how many people in local government have to go into the question of estimates, finance and the rest, but how many people are doing this in the Scottish Office? Or is it being done very crudely, with guidelines then being produced as holy writ? They are more like guile lines than guidelines because they do not mean anything in relation to the reality of local government. I hope that the House will not pass this order.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, would very much like to welcome the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, in this House. He may regard it as somewhat of a caesarean operation in that he was put in here perhaps prematurely. Nonetheless, he is extremely welcome. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that he could not have been put out of the other place by a better party. In spite of all the "cracks" which have been made, the welcome is indeed sincere. We are sure that the noble Lord will do as good a job as his party will allow him to do.
I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, though I shall take a little less time in which to do so. It is an unfortunate subject for the noble Lord to have to deal with first in this House. The way that the Secretary of State is going on about this matter is quite extraordinary. Local government in Scotland needed a great deal of reform. There is no question whatsoever about that. The party of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, had done a great deal of harm to the reputation of local government. There were many anomalies. In the much quoted district of Glasgow, for example, the ratepayers were soaked at the expense of householders in municipal housing who had low rents and low rates and who, of course, continued to vote for the party which put them in this position.
The reforms have now been made. No longer are parties able to return to power by soaking one section of the community, which is what the Labour Party did for many years. Those reforms were right and proper. I do not know who is prompting the Scottish Office, or the Government. I do not know whether Scotland is being made an example, perhaps to be followed by England. However, the Government are now going to quite ridiculous lengths. Lothian is a case in point. Having got the conditions right and having made it quite clear that the locally elected councillors would have to sting their constituents if they wanted to carry on with excessive spending, the electorate got the message and removed the offending party from control of Lothian. That, I should have thought, was a right and proper thing to happen in a democracy, and the Government should have been quite pleased that it did happen.
It is much easier to keep one's expenditure down and much more difficult to reduce excessive expenditure, but nevertheless Lothian succeeded in cutting £53 million. They fixed a rate at 92p—not excessively above the average in view of Lothian's problems. One would have thought that democracy had been at work and that this was a reasonable thing for the Government to achieve.
Now the Government are actually listening to the local Tory Party, so far as I can gather—to the minority group—and are fixing the reduction at the level at which the local minority group Tory Party fixed it. They are not allowing any compromise. This is appalling. This is a complete negation of democracy. Here is a case where the Government appear to be acting—I do not know what. Is it out of spite? Is it out of offended pride? In Scotland we would say that the Government are being "bairnly"—and I will explain that word to the Hansard reporter afterwards, although I believe the noble Lords the Ministers on the Front Bench know exactly what I mean.

1319
That is quite the wrong way for the Secretary of State to go about this. When one imposes arbitrary cuts on a local authority (and this has been proven time and again) and imposes them very quickly—and one does it in Government—that which is cut is the most easily-cut expenditure. They first take capital expenditure and cut that back. Then they take the sharp end. They do not try to cut administration. What they have done in Lothian is to cut the teachers and the home helps, and then try to save money on transport.
They have been reasonably successful in cutting expenditure, but expenditure has not been cut from those places where everyone wants it to be cut—from the excessive costs of administration. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was probably absolutely right when he said that the administration costs had been forced up by the Government's action. As a result, the Government are surely spoiling their own case: they are making it quite obvious to any decent, respectable and respected man that there is no point in going into local government.
If Central Office and the Treasury are going to check through every item of expenditure—which is obviously what is going to happen—what the devil is the point of having local democracy? It would be far better for the Secretary of State to appoint his commissar and let him run matters according to the rules of the Scottish Office. All this is really going too far. It is negating the good work which the Government have done up to now. I must say that I had hoped for better things from the Ministers of the Scottish Office.
If we continue in this manner, efficiency will fall lower and the best people will not be returning. One is far more likely to have a return to the kind of body which the Government are so much against. Think what a really "smart cookie" member of the sort of Government we might have if the Left-wing of the Labour party were elected to power could do with the powers now being handed to him on a plate. He could order the councils, conceivably, to double their rates and spread them about his favoured customers. It is a very bad order. The Government are going along a very dangerous road, and I must say that this order cannot meet with my approval.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, having given way to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who has made what was for him a long speech—because he does not usually speak for seven minutes—I shall have to cut short my remarks. Until my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock had done his research, I had not realised how densely populated this House was by former Ministers of State for Scotland. In fact, if one looks at the attendance one might say that it is as some of our English colleagues would say, almost infested by former Scottish Ministers of State. But there are now two of us present—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and myself. I believe it would be appropriate for me also to extend a word of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin.
If the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has a grievance against the electors of Ross and Cromarty, it
1320
has been added to tonight because he now knows the kind of thing which he has to face in this House. Every time he gets up to speak as Minister of State for Scotland he will be left in no doubt at all by my noble friend about the shortcomings of the Government in Scotland. Although my noble friend perhaps spoke longer than the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, wanted him to speak, and probably spoke longer than I would have done, every word he said was absolutely true.
The noble Lord the Minister started by saying that this was not the subject that he would have chosen for his maiden speech. I can understand why he said that. He is a good Scot—we know that. It cannot come naturally for a good Scot that his first speech should need to make yet a further attack on local government in Scotland.
I have been long enough in public life to remember the election in Scotland when the Tories' slogan—a slogan with which they tried to gain seats in Scotland—was
"Town Hall knows better than Whitehall".
That sentiment has been abandoned with a vengeance during the past few years. However well he may put the case forward—and the noble Lord will have this kind of thing to do yet again—I cannot believe that the heart of the new Minister of State for Scotland will endorse this kind of order. He has my sympathy; but I also welcome him to this House because in this Chamber we need all the Scots that we can lay our hands on.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, might I first thank the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Hughes, for their generous comments and their welcome. I can assure them that if they care to indulge in party political knockabout, I shall try not to be tempted to follow their example. But where they make criticisms of the Government then I shall certainly defend my Government in the knowledge that the steps which the Government are taking, and have taken over the last four years, are the only realistic steps which could have been taken in order to try to recreate in this country the kind of success which we have almost forgotten.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, asked why it was that this order was not made some time ago. The answer to that question is quite simple. It is that the Government, like any thinking Government, are reluctant to bring legislation before the House which is not absolutely necessary. Indeed, this order would not have been necessary had some local authorities in Scotland not obliged my right honourable friend to take action because he was satisfied that they planned to incur excessive and unreasonable expenditure.
I agree with the noble Lord that the circumstances which made this order necessary are regrettable. The Secretary of State, however, acted reasonably in not making the order until it was seen to be necessary. If local authorities had been as reasonable, then very likely the order would not have been required at all. That I give as my answer also to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who raised the same issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—and I congratulate him on having lost none of his powers of

1321
oratory since he came to this House from another place—said that I knew him and that I know him. That is very true, I do know him; and I can never forget him for his performances in another place. I know that his skills in debate reveal his technique for quoting and for giving reference to support his own arguments very skilfully indeed. We would almost have been misled by some of his remarks had we not done a little bit of research. He was suggesting that this Government was extremely ruthless with local government, insisting on defying local democracy and unnecessarily cutting back the amount local authorities had to spend. But of course the largest reduction in the rate support grant percentage was 4 per cent., and that was made during the period of government 1977–78 when the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was a member of the Cabinet.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, the noble Lord had better get his facts right if he is going to continue without interruption from me. I left the Cabinet in 1976.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; I of course was mistaken in that; but what I was not mistaken in was that the party of which he was a very loyal supporter formed the Government at that time. Indeed, the abatement in 1976–77 leading to a reduction in local authority expenditure was also associated with the party of which he was a loyal member. So we must get these things in perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to the situation in Glasgow, and there was one comment which he made which I must put right. He referred to the alleged error, I want to clear up any misunderstanding which there may have been over errors which have been described in newspaper articles. All local authorities, as the noble Lord knows well, have to submit by the middle of March each year a form giving information about their budget for the following financial year. This form has to be certified as correct by the authority. Glasgow's form as submitted was, to put it at its best, confusing. It included a sum of £8 million for unallocated contingencies without any explanation.
In view of the size of the sum, the Scottish Office made inquiries of Glasgow. These revealed that the sum was an unallocated contingency which should have been shown elsewhere, and none of it taken into account as part of Glasgow's relevant expenditure for comparison against guidelines. Once the Scottish Office had established this, the £8 million was removed from Glasgow's figures for the purposes of guideline comparison and their guideline excess adjusted accordingly. The £8 million played no part in our consideration of Glasgow's expenditure for selective action. If there was any mistake, it was Glasgow's mistake for failing to present their figures properly.
The second error was over the £4 million included by Glasgow in its certified return on the line for housing improvement grants. This line is used by all other authorities and up to this year had been used by Glasgow itself only for the expenditure involved in administering housing improvement grants and loan charges, but not for the grants themselves. This year Glasgow decided to enter in this line expenditure on the grants themselves. It was bound to cause confusion
1322
if Glasgow chose without explanation to change its practice in providing information. The first time it was drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend was at a meeting which he held with representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The purpose of such meetings is of course to discuss local authority financial matters in general, not detailed points of this kind. Once again the term "error" is quite inappropriate.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it is really not worth while giving way, I never mentioned the £8 million that the noble Lord spoke about. I do not know where he got his reply, but it was not related to my speech. I never mentioned it.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord will be none the worse for the information even if he did not mention it. The noble Lord also asked me about the regulations and I have to tell him that the regulations are subject to negative resolution of either House.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, also expressed some reservations about the order and particularly the question of local government democracy. But of course I have to remind him that national government and local government is a partnership, and national government obviously has the right to determine expenditure at the top of that partnership, because in each partnership there will be a senior and a junior partner. The local authorities are absolutely democratically elected—the noble Lord is perfectly correct—but the guidelines are laid down by the Government. If local authorities overspend and appear to be going to overspend, and that excessive expenditure, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is endangering the whole policy which is being followed in an effort to try to recreate what we would all wish to see in this country, then of course the Secretary of State is absolutely right to take what powers he can. The powers we are discussing tonight are a development, as the noble Lord discussed of earlier Acts. We go back I think to the 1929 Act, and the 1966 Act in particular, and this order tonight is a development from powers taken in those Acts.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the noble Lord say that it is a partnership. The point I am trying to make is that when you treat a partner as an employee you stifle any further development and he becomes an employee. I was trying to say that that is the point at which the Government are.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I accept the point that the noble Lord has made; I obviously would not agree with him; but I realise the point he is making. I think we have had a useful debate this evening. We have discussed this order in some detail and I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in our debate. I hope that we shall have the opportunity of many more debates in which we can exchange our views and ensure that the Scottish people know full well that in the House of Lords their interests are always well considered, and that the right decisions are ultimately taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
8.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 31 [Payrolls and accounts]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 22, line 39, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (7)")
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, may I take with this amendment Amendment No. 51, and I hope introduce a long line of brief speeches in order that we may make some rapid progress.
Amendment No. 51: Page 23. line 30, at end insert—("(7) The Secretary of State may by order withdraw the exemption of data under this section, and an order under this section may make different provision in relation to data consisting of information of different descriptions, or held for different purposes.")
The object of this exercise is really to give legislative power first of all to redress something which proves to be wrong, and also—if I may put it this way—to move with the times.
Lord Swinfen: May I be so rude and so bold as to interrupt the noble Lord? Is he proposing to make use of the new procedure, introduced earlier this afternoon, to have a note of the second amendment to which he is speaking put into the Official Report at the same time?
Lord Mishcon: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, because it gives me quite pompously the opportunity of saying that it is a procedure which I had the honour of suggesting in the Procedure Committee and which was subsequently adopted. Therefore, I should love to take advantage of the new rule, as it were, to ask that this be done and that the linkage takes place in the report of our proceedings that subsequently appears. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to the noble Lord.
In speaking to both these amendments I should say that the real purpose of the exercise is to do two things. First, it is to give a necessary legislative power if one finds one has given an exemption which is wrong; and, secondly, it is to be able to move with the times because one imagines that the Bill, if enacted, will be on the statute book for some time and one does not want to have amending Acts every five minutes.
Under the present provisions it literally would be the case that one would be exempting at one stroke under Clause 31 about 80 per cent, of all the automatic processing of personal data that takes place. Therefore, to give power, as Amendment No. 51 does, to the Secretary of State to withdraw an exemption of data if he thinks it expedient to do so and to make an order under this clause which can make different provision in relation to data consisting of information of different descriptions, or held for different purposes, seems to me to be very sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: In principle I support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the thinking behind what he is advancing, which is also reflected in amendments I have yet to move. I shall speak to them when I move
1324
them; otherwise, they will not get recorded as the new procedure does not go that far. I merely say that the principle of the idea that we can move with the times and adjust the extra things that can be included is a good one.
Lord Elton: In Clause 31 we bring home our unicorns—those elusive beasts, the completely harmless categories of data that can be exempted from the Bill without danger to anyone. Clause 31 has been carefully constructed at the urging of noble Lords on both sides of the Chamber and of bodies outside it. It reflects suggestions put to us from a number of quarters, among them the Opposition Members of the Committee on last Session's Bill in another place who put their names to an amendment exempting payroll and accounting data. We have been particularly careful to limit both the purposes for which the data are held and the disclosures that are permissible in order to ensure that no harm is likely to befall data subjects as a result of the exemption of data. I see no prospect of that expectation being disappointed. If we were not confident of that we would not have amended last Session's Bill in the way that we have. Nor, I suggest, would the Opposition parties have joined together to urge us to amend it.
That being so, I think there is only a slender chance of the order-making power proposed by noble Lords opposite in fact being needed. It is so slender that I find the prospect of legislating to provide that power awakens all those instincts which flourished in my bosom when in opposition, and which the holding of office tends to smother. I am not over-keen on voting a Government powers which I do not expect them to use. That is a healthy instinct which noble Lords opposite will understand very well. In this case it is supported by the reflection that as long as it exists small users who hold data for no other purposes than those covered by Clause 31 would not be finally free from potential application of the Bill, and the legislation would hang over them like the sword over the head of Damocles.
At one point last session we were urged to provide for an order-making power under which the Secretary of State could exempt certain data to be defined in the order. At that time we took the view, and I think it was supported by the noble Lords opposite, that if there were to be any exemptions they should appear on the face of the Bill. I think that the reverse equally applies, inasmuch as if an exemption is made on the face of the Bill, as it is under Clause 31, it should not be capable of being rescinded or withdrawn by subordinate legislation. I hope I am not splitting hairs and that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree with me.
Lord Mishcon: I love to follow the noble Lord the Minister when he reminisces in the humorous way that he does about previous metaphors that he has used, especially when they relate to the animal kingdom. I am tempted to tell him that possibly the answer to his speech is: when is a unicorn not a unicorn? With the passage of time I suppose it is possible for the species to develop so that it is not recognisable as a unicorn. That is exactly what I am endeavouring to provide for. When one is legislating, is it not sensible to try to provide for all contingencies? The noble Lord said that

1325
there was only a slender chance that the cancellation of the exemption might be required. That may well be his forecast now. If so, should he not give himself the power in this legislation to deal with it?
May I say with great respect that I feel this is a debating argument. In order to defeat something it cannot be regarded as a very reasonable argument against it merely to say that the sword of Damocles would be hanging over many thousands of users who would wonder whether an order might appear one day and that Parliament might agree it. I do not regard that as a very practical prophecy.
I believe this is a sensible amendment. However, it is not the sort of amendment for which I am prepared to put my head on the block. I merely throw it out as a sensible suggestion. If the Minister will agree to consider, between now and Report, whether there is rather more merit in it than he thought, I, for my part, will be perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment. I hope the Minister will give that assurance.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is as courteously persuasive as ever. I thought I had a unicorn with one horn, and he has presented me with a dilemma which has two. Therefore, if he will bear with me, although I am not enormously attracted by what he said I think there is some force in his argument and I should like to look at it before the next stage.
Lord Mishcon: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 23, line 6, at end insert ("; or
(c) for the purpose of administering a data subject in respect of service by the data subject in any employment or office with the data user,")
The noble Lord said: I should like to bracket Amendment No. 50 with this amendment and, in accordance with the new rules of procedure, have both amendments recorded, because the first amendment does not mean anything without the second.
Amendment No. 50: Page 23. line 24, at end insert—
(" () Personal data as referred to in subsection (1)(c) above shall only be exempt as specified in the said subsection (c) if such data have been supplied to the data user by or with the consent of the data subject (or a person acting on his behalf).")
This amendment is on the same theme. It seeks to widen the extent to which Clause 31 can include information about which there is no doubt. It seeks to add all the types of information which are supplied by an employee, such as address, telephone number, children, next-of-kin, qualifications and courses attended. This will be the kind of information he will probably have entered on his application form for the job.
Amendment No. 50 is drafted in a rather strange way because the friend who proposed it to me was advised by a lawyer, but the important part of Amendment No. 50 is that which says that Amendment No. 48 only takes effect if it is information which is,
"supplied to the data user by or with the consent of the data subject".
Therefore it is information which he already knows and which might usefully be added to his payroll
1326
information. The justification is similar because he knows what is there as he gets the money. I suggest to my noble friend that this would be something which could usefully be added at this stage in order to reduce the amount of excessive causes for data users having to register with the registrar so as not to overwork those inadequate 20 people whom the registrar has to work for him. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I approve of the principle of this amendment, but I should like to ask my noble friend one small point. If someone, having completed his original application form, goes on to get more qualifications, attends courses or gains various bits of experience that are worked up within the firm's own time, which the employer may also wish to record in a similar manner, what is the position? It strikes me that information on the original application would be covered by the amendment but the other information would not be. It would be in a totally different position. It seems to me illogical.
Lord Mottistone: I think I can answer that. I used the application form only as an example of the sort of information that would be there. Amendment No. 50 speaks of data which has been supplied to the data user:
"by or with the consent of the data subject (or a person acting on his behalf)".
He could allow the personnel officer who organised his course to provide that sort of information on his behalf within the terms of my amendments.
Lord Elton: The Government were persuaded as a result of exchanges on the earlier Bill that there was a case for exempting two sorts of data used in specific and very carefully defined circumstances. They are described in Clause 31 as data held only for payroll and accounting purposes. The clause exempts them provided that the limitations on their disclosure are met. My noble friend Lord Mottistone is now asking us to add a third category—data provided by an employee to his employer and used for "administering" the employee. My noble friend has indicated the kind of information that he has in mind here. It is the basic information about staff that managers are increasingly holding on desk-top micro-computers: name, address, qualifications, employment history, and the like. But I have grave doubts as to whether this ought to become a third category of exemption.
First, I have to say that, from the viewpoint of the data user, an exemption as proposed would, I think, be of limited value. Almost any user with managers holding this kind of data on desk-top micros will also hold similar data, as part of their general and much more wide-ranging employment records, on some central system. Those central records will not be exempt. I do not think my noble friend would suggest that they should be. The registration of the central system will sweep up the desk-top files, since the description of the central data will embrace the data on the managers' files, the purposes for which the data are held will cover both sets of data, and so on. To the extent that the limited exemption proposed will not relieve the user from any significant responsibility—and nor will it keep unnecessary particulars off the register—I find it unappealing. I

1327
would also add that I wonder how many managers with desk-top micros will in fact restrict their records on employees to the data covered by the amendments. I suspect that very few would qualify for the exemption. But that is not my main anxiety. We must look at the proposal from the data subjects' point of view.
As your Lordships are aware, one of the main purposes of this Bill is to reassure data subjects about the use of personal data; and I have to say that I think there could be some concern among data subjects at being "administered" by exempt data. Incidentally, I am not at all clear what the term "administer" means in this context. But what does seem indisputable is that it goes very wide. It could cover discipline, promotion, pay and a host of such matters. Data may be provided by the data subject, but when combined with other data he has supplied, or indeed that he has not, the net result may be an administrative use that he had never considered.
In exempting payroll and accounting data we have accepted that here are certain kinds of personal information that virtually every company in the country—large and small—holds as part of everyday business activity. The data subject knows it is held, and, more important, knows of what it consists and precisely what it is used for. Indeed, generally it can only be used in a way that is of direct benefit to the subject: paying his wage, salary or pension, or recording and regularising the business transaction which subject and user have both voluntarily entered into. This is all so innocuous that it really does not warrant statutory protective machinery. Finally, through regular pay slips and the normal process of invoicing, there is a means by which the subject himself can keep a check on the end result of the use of the exempt data. The data covered by these amendments are of a rather different nature.
I am afraid that the amendment leaves us with a rather imprecise idea of what will constitute the data, and we are even less certain of the uses to which it may be put. These two uncertainties make it difficult to assess the benefits which their exemption would bestow on users. They also leave us less than confident that they cannot combine to the detriment of the data subject. As the protection of the data subject is in fact a central purpose of the Bill, regretfully I am afraid that I cannot commend my noble friend's proposal to your Lordships. I am sorry I cannot be more encouraging.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend for having given the reasons at such length why he is not entirely happy with my amendments. Some of the general information that he gave us contained a few nuggets—which we talked about earlier. I shall look carefully to see the nuggets in print and will hope that they will satisfy me and my friends. If not, perhaps I might come back with an even more carefully contrived solution to the problem the next time we take this point. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 23, line 7, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 8.
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which refers to Clause 31 of the Bill, as the Committee appreciates. That clause exempts from the registration provisions of the Bill certain payroll accounts. I have no doubt at all but that this is a very desirable and wholly understandable provision. It follows therefore that in so far as those accounts are concerned, there will not be supervision by the registrar under the requisite provisions of the Bill. What we on this side of the Committee however quarrel with is the next stage. Why should data subjects, whose names and data appear in respect of such payroll accounts, be deprived of the right of access under Clause 21; rectification and erasure where there are mistakes, under Clause 24; or compensation for inaccuracy under Clause 22; where it is shown that the data published is wrongfully disclosed? We say that such data is capable of causing as much harm as any other data. The exclusion of such data from the provisions of Clauses 21, 22 and 24 is a complete non sequitur, we say. The effect of this utterly reasonable amendment would be to remedy that defect. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: As I have already said, we thought very carefully about the way in which exemptions such as those to which the noble Lord has referred should be described so as to ensure that they applied only to those strictly limited circumstances in which exemption would cause no harm. We did this not simply by the manner in which the activity was described, but by specifying that the exemption could be claimed only where disclosure took place in strictly limited circumstances. We believe that by specifying both use and disclosure in this way we have ensured that such data cannot be misused to the detriment of the subjects. Had we not believed this, we should not have come forward with the proposals.
It follows from this that the application of Part III of the Bill to such data must be superfluous. If we believed that there remained a need for a statutory right of subject access to such data, it would be because we believed that there was a possibility that they might contain material likely to do harm to data subjects. But if we had believed that, we should not have proposed this as a category of exemption. The noble Lord may well come back and say that perhaps the clause should be struck out of the Bill, but I think that that would be a mistake.
Had we conceived the possibility of damage arising from the misuse of such data, or that there might be a necessity for rectification or erasure to be ordered by the courts, we should not have exempted these activities. If there are threats to data subjects arising from the use of data for these tightly defined purposes, then the answer is to apply the whole range of the Bill's provisions to them, and not to embark upon selective controls; but as I have made clear, I do not believe that such a threat exists.
I think that I might have said enough, at least to expose my central position. If the noble Lord wishes to press me further, there is more that I can say.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: That was a very high-minded reply, if I may say so, and it removed from the Government's argument for exempting payroll and accounting data the issue of practicality. I should have thought that the prime argument for exempting payroll and accounting data from Part II of the Bill was primarily one of practicality; that these are universal types of data, and that the inclusion of these data in the Bill would have made the task of the registrar very much more onerous, and would have made it much more difficult for the remainder of automatically processed data to be dealt with adequately by the registrar and his very limited staff, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said. I would go along with that practical argument for exempting payroll and accounting data.
However, I do not think that that necessarily proves that harm could not arise to the data subject from these forms of data and from the way in which these data are held by employers. To me, as someone involved with payroll and accounting data, it seems self-evident that there are inaccuracies, that there are things which in the short term affect the employee's next pay packet, and in the longer term could affect his whole employment history, and could affect his chance of continued employment either at his existing place of employment or somewhere else. Without being a lawyer, I should have thought that there must be some legal redress for such an employee, and that it could very well be obtained through the courts in the ordinary way without going to the trouble of having the data subject to the registrar and the whole paraphernalia of Part II of the Bill.
Therefore on strictly practical grounds I agree with the application of Part II to these data; but there is no logical reason why there should not be redress in the courts in the ordinary way, and there is no particular good reason why the Bill should be used to deny the data subject access in this way.
The second argument that I would adduce on the amendment is that I seriously doubt whether such an exemption is in accordance with the European Convention. The principles on this matter are quite clear. Not even any of the interpretations laid down in Schedule 2 to the Bill allow for the possibility of such a wide-ranging series of exemptions from the erasure and disclosure conditions, and I seriously wonder whether in this particular case the Government have been adequately advised about conformity with the convention.
Lord Elton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of the convention and for pressing this matter further, because in fact it is Article 3.2.a of the convention which enables us to justify the exemption which we propose. A further obstacle to what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and his noble friends propose is that it would not be possible to adopt the proposal contained in his amendment and remain consistent with the Council of Europe Convention in that respect. This may sound surprising, but the fact is that the article to which I have referred entitles a state to give notice that it will not apply the Convention to,
"certain categories of automated personal data files".
1330
The provision goes on to say that among these categories there shall not be included,
"categories of automated data files subject under its domestic law to data protection provisions".
The result of that provision—a somewhat ironic one, some noble Lords may think—is that, with the exception of the derogation permitted under Article 9, data must either be wholly bound by the provisions set out in the convention, or wholly outside the scope of those provisions. The convention does not allow a state to pick and choose between the provisions that it will apply. Although some of the other requirements of the convention could without undue difficulty be applied to the data that we are discussing, there would, I fear, be considerable problems where unregistered data are concerned, in meeting the full obligations of Article 8, which, as I shall remind your Lordships,
"entitles any person …to establish the existence of an automated personal data file".
The position is therefore that we are forced to choose: either data as described in Clause 31 are wholly harmless and appropriate for total exemption from the provisions of the Bill, or we remain concerned about them and allow no exemption at all. It was with this in mind that we were so rigorous in deciding which categories we could safely exempt, and that is why there are so few. The result is I think that we have chosen what is genuinely and entirely innocuous. I hope that noble Lords will be content to leave it wholly outside the Bill, because the only alternative under this Article is to have it entirely within it.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I have listened with very great interest to what the noble Lord has said, and I must say that on a superficial reading of Article 3 it seems that it is neck or nothing; that it must be either wholly inside, or wholy excluded from the data provisions. However, I am not quite sure that I understand the interaction between Article 9 and Article 3, and it seems to me that Article 9 refers specifically to exemptions under Articles 5, 6, and 8.
Be that as it may, we shall take full advantage of the next three months to reflect much more deeply upon this matter and to cogitate in very great depth upon what the Minister has said. I am sure that likewise he too will reflect upon the argument that has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Mcintosh of Haringey. That is, that if it has to be total inclusion or total exclusion, whether on a balance of fairness and convenience it might not be better to include altogether. So over the next three months we shall consider this matter and we shall return reinvigorated and we hope inspired in relation to what course ultimately to take with regard to the Government's attitude, knowing that they too will have given the matter their fullest thought. On that basis I most certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved. ]
8.39 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 52:
Leave out Clause 31 and insert the following new Clause—
("31.—(1) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Act. where a data user holds personal data for one or more purposes specified in subsection (2) of this section, and for no

1331
other purpose, sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of this Act will not apply in respect of that data user.
(2) This section applies if the data user has with the data subject a contractual, trading, business or professional relationship to which the personal data relates and the purposes referred to in subsection (1) above are to administer (in a manner and to an extent that the data subject would reasonably expect) that relationship and/or the internal management of the data user's trading, business or professional activities.
(3) Any data user who is exempt under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall nevertheless take all necessary steps to ensure that any personal data which he holds are held in accordance with the principles contained in Part I of Schedule 1 of this Act and in interpreting the second, third, fourth and sixth principles the purpose or purposes for which data are held will be deemed to be the appropriate purpose or purposes described in subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said; On this amendment I have been advised by the CBI, and its great concern was that of the noble Lords opposite in the amendment that we have just debated; namely, that the Government were moving outside the terms of the convention. My noble friend has answered the points of which the CBI was fearful, and it asks in particular that this should be clarified. The CBI very much welcomes Clause 31 as it stands because it is moving in the direction in which it has always sought to move of having exemption for registration for data held for routine business purposes. The CBI presumes to recast in the amendments that we are now discussing the whole clause partly in order, as it sees it, to get over this problem of possibly going against the convention for the very reason with which my noble friend has dealt, but also in order to expand the scope somewhat to cover other routine business matters which it felt it could reasonably fit within its recast clause. I accept what my noble friend says so far as it goes. I cannot comment upon it but I will ask my advisers to study it carefully. I hope that he might see whether Clause 31 as re-proposed on the lines of Amendment No. 52 might not be a better way of tackling the problem in order to make sure about the convention and in order to give the scope that is possible.
I would have also thought that we are on a slightly dangerous point, both noble Lords opposite and myself, insofar as the Government have taken immense trouble to include this to satisfy what we were asking for when the Bill came before us last time. If we push too hard the Government may find some terrible weakness and take it away. We must try to preserve Clause 31, albeit in its present form, if the Government can live with it. I do not know whether my noble friend will be able to say that he will look at my amendment which genuinely tries to help him. It is only in any case a probing amendment.
Lord Elton: I hope your Lordships will forgive me as I pause. I was reflecting whether I could not curtail what I was going to say. I have so decided. If, therefore, there is a certain incoherence, I hope that my attention will be drawn to it and I shall try to put it right. It is perhaps proper if I start by explaining why I believe that a reduction in the scope of the register as drastic as that which I believe to be implied in the amendment would fundamentally change its character.
In our view, the register will fulfil two functions in relation to domestic considerations. The first is that it
1332
will provide the registrar with an insight into the range of circumstances in which personal data are used. It will tell him the scale of the activity and the range of purposes, disclosures and so on, that currently take place. Although Clause 31 as drafted may remove a number of entries from the register there would always be entries of a similar type. They would relate either to payroll or accounting systems.
The amendment we are now considering would. I believe, not only remove a substantially larger number from the register. It would also remove a wide range of activities of different types. It would lose its role as the registrar's essential point of reference and he would have no precise means of judging whether data were being used or disclosed in accordance with a clearly defined purpose. I appreciate the attempt made in subsection (3) of the amendment to interpret what the principles mean by specified purposes and disclosures, but I fear that the overall effect would still remain extremely vague. Indeed, I cannot believe that users would really welcome so uncertain a provision as that now before us, since it would leave the registrar with total discretion to decide, subject only to appeal, whether a particular disclosure by a data user was compatible or not with the trading relationship in question. The effect of the amendment could thus be to rob the registrar of an essential tool in general oversight while leaving him wide-ranging discretion in individual cases to interpret what I am bound to say are some highly subjective tests. I do not think that it would be right to do that.
Nor should we forget the implications for data subjects if we were to go down the road that is proposed here. The result, I suspect, in a wide variety of cases would be to deprive them of the ability to discover from the register what were the legitimate activities of a particular data user. Although they would still be entitled to seek subject access to data held about them, they would apparently have no means of knowing the purposes for which those data were held or to whom it was the user's practice to disclose. They, like the registrar, would be deprived of any general idea of the range of activities undertaken with personal data.
I suspect that we would find ourselves in considerable difficulty with the Council of Europe Convention. It is the unexpected difficulty that noble Lords opposite came up against in the last amendment, so I will not elaborate. I hope that I have said enough to satisfy my noble friend that I am afraid I cannot meet this proposal with the enthusiasm that he would like.
Lord Mottistone: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for what he said in answer to Amendment No. 49 and in answer to this Amendment No. 52. It will give us great food for thought. I said that it was a probing amendment. We shall have a good look and if we can think of anything better we might come back on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Domestic or other limited purposes]:
8.46 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 23, line 43. at end insert ("but it shall be a condition of that exemption that the data are not disclosed to any other person").
The noble Lord said: The Committee, or what is left of the Committee, may well remember that on this clause dealing with some sensible exemptions from Part II and Clauses 21 to 24 of the Bill, we dealt in the last Session with certain difficulties. Some amendments were generously conceded by the Government. However, I do not think that they have gone far enough. I can put the point shortly. If your Lordships will look at Clause 32, and particularly subsection (2), you will see that, understandably, the exemption I have mentioned is given to personal data held by an unincorporated members' club relating only to members of the club and personal data held by a data user only for the purpose of distributing or recording the distribution of articles to the data subjects and consisting only of their names and addresses. The first example, obviously, is that of a club, which will be readily appreciated. The second, I suppose, is of a departmental store or mail order business.
If your Lordships turn over the page you will see in subsection (3) that the condition for the exemption is that there has been a request by the club or the other data user of the person concerned to see whether or not he objects. If he does not object, the exemption applies. All that is sensible.
But the amendment catches, I think, the omission from the clause. It is this. If the members' club, the departmental store or the mail order business decides to pass on to a third party the information that they have with the permission of the data subject, and does so without the data subject's permission—it is most likely, in some cases, and certainly for a mail order business or departmental store, that may be for money or money's worth—it is obviously completely unjust that the data subject is then robbed of his rights in respect of that matter by virtue of the exemption that is granted by Clause 32. It is a simple point that I can put in one sentence. Non-objection to holding should result in exemptions for holding but not in exemptions for unauthorised disclosure. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: With this amendment to Clause 32(2) we return to an issue which was, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon has indicated, the subject of some debate last Session. Noble Lords and others well know the contents of the clause, so I shall not weary the Committee by going through them again.
As indicated last Session, the first part of the exemption is aimed at specialised clubs and societies who may well use micro-computers to hold membership lists and to circulate news-letters et. cetera. The second is aimed primarily at similar noncommercial bodies who may not be able to claim the examption for clubs—such as a local church which may use a micro-computer to circulate a parish magazine. The requirement that only names and addresses are held and that subjects be consulted means that this exemption is unlikely to be of great
1334
significance in the commercial direct marketing industry. Thus we are dealing with two categories of personal data held in very limited circumstances which can be exempted without leaving the data subject unprotected.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord opposite would impose a further condition of exemption under Clause 32(2), that the data are not disclosed to any person. As a result of a Government amendment last Session—prompted by the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—we have already ensured that where these personal data are diclosed the recipient of the data, before being able to claim the exemption under Clause 32(2), will himself have to go to the subjects and make sure that they do not object to his holding the data. He can no longer rely on the subjects' consent to the original user holding the data. Moreover, the requirement under Clause 32(3) to consult the data subject gives him a very considerable power to safeguard his own interests. Thus, when asked by a data user whether he objected to personal data about him being held, the subject could indicate that he did not object provided the data were not disclosed to particular persons, or indeed to any third party.
I have to say that to go as far as is suggested in the current amendment and to ban all disclosures would in large part render the exemption worthless. Few would wish or be able to claim the exemption if all disclosures were prohibited. Thus a fishing club might wish to inform another club of members who might be interested in taking part in a competition; and, back at the church, even a vicar is likely to need to disclose personal data to his churchwardens and voluntary helpers who circulate the parish magazine.
In conclusion, I would suggest that Clause 32(2) already places sensible limits on these exemptions, and that Clause 32(3) allows the subject to place limits on disclosures. It therefore appears something of an over-reaction to impose additional restrictions on disclosure, and to go as far as this amendment would render the clause a nullity. Having said that, we recognise that in the new Clause 31 we have limitations (though not an absolute prohibition) on disclosure as a condition of exemption, and those limitations permit of disclosures where, for example, the subject himself agrees. In view of that, we will undertake to have another look at this point, though at the present time we are not convinced that the safeguards for the subject here are in need of further enhancement.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: I am sure that my noble friends will be grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. I only want to point her in one direction in her reconsiderations and to say that I believe that she has made out a reasonable case for paragraph (a) dealing with clubs, and that there should not be this further restriction. However, I would ask her to continue to look very carefully at the case as regards direct mail houses recording the distribution of articles to data subjects.
The fact that this is a serious matter was shown by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in the debate in Committee last Session, when he pointed out that the British Direct Mail Advertising Association had found it necessary to have a voluntary code

1335
to allow people who are on mailing lists under some circumstances to say that they do not want to have their names passed to a third party. It has been a matter of considerable public controversy. The direct mail industry is conscious that this is something which has caused a great deal of trouble and resentment. I personally have always avoided joining the Automobile Association or subscribing to Reader's Digest very much for that reason. I do not want my name sold to other people for totally different purposes. I certainly believe that this part of the clause requires further consideration.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to back up what the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, has just said. Direct mail houses and list-builders of one sort or another are always looking for additions to their lists. Lists of club members or people who shop in one place or another are very important to them. I should perhaps declare an interest in this particular point as a member of the Direct Mail Services Standards Board.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I can abbreviate the proceedings by saying that the two noble Lords who have just spoken have said everything that I would have said in reply to the noble Baroness. All I want to do is to thank her for her promise to reconsider in the light of what has been said today. In those circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 24. line 5, at end inserted—
("()Data processed solely for the purpose of publication shall be exempt from the registration and subject access provisions."')
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 54 is concerned with electronic newsrooms, and your Lordships will be aware that when material is processed for the purpose of publishing the damage which may arise to the data subject arising from inaccuracy would obviously be the result of publication. It is, from that point of view, irrelevant whether the processing was carried out manually or electronically.
Publishers who use electronic means, such as the BBC, make use of systems which process data and are closedly connected with the purpose of publication. Many of these operate on a timescale which is far too short to offer the data subject any practicable opportunity for intervention. We would suggest that there is very little point in giving the data subject an ostensible right of access which he would have no conceivable opportunity of exercising. Registration of most of the capacities of an electronic newsroom would, therefore, we suggest, be an empty and bureaucratic gesture.
Information is received by the BBC and other publishing organisations of that kind, and then immediately published. If there is anything wrong with it an effective remedy would follow the publication. The appropriate remedy for the data subject in respect of this material is already provided in the law of defamation. The provisions of the Bill could not, for
1336
the most part offer any practical remedy for inaccuracy, and registration of such systems would have no merit beyond the achievement of bureaucratic completeness. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: When I first saw the amendment, placed as it is in Part IV of the Bill, I assumed that its purpose was to ensure that any data held only for the purpose of publication should not need to be registered, nor should subject access apply. This would allow the exemption to be enjoyed, I suppose, by newspapers, broadcasting companies and publishers. I had not been conscious that the newspaper and publishing industry feared that compliance with the Bill would make life impossible for them.
Further, as has been said before, we must be very careful about making special cases. Is it really desirable to provide that newspapers and publishers should not have to register under the Bill, and that the subjects of any data that they hold should not have the benefit of subject access? Indeed, many data subjects would argue that the prospect of the whole country being made privy to information about them increases rather than reduces the case for them to be able to check that the holder of the information has got it right. There is a certain irony in a situation in which a data subject could be refused access on the grounds that there is no need to worry, all the information will be emblazoned across the front pages of tomorrow's newspaper and he can see whether it is accurate then.
But the noble Lord has indicated that in fact his purpose was a much more limited one—and that was, in effect, simply to ensure that the use of computer type-setting techniques should not be caught by the Bill. In other words, he is seeking to restrict the definition of "processing", and to that extent Clause 1 might have been a more natural place for the amendment. But in fact there is no need for it, because Clause 1 as cast already deals with the point.
When computer type-setting techniques are used, personal data may of course be involved. Most newspaper stories, for example, include some personal data about somebody. But it is scarcely likely that those personal data will be processed by reference to the data subject in terms of Clause 1 (7). If that does not happen, the activity is not caught by the Bill. Moreover, even if it were to happen. Clause 1(8) provides that processing shall not be construed as applying to operations performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents—which of course computer type-setting is. Therefore, I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will accept that there is no need for further amendment to the Bill to exclude computer type-setting from its scope.
Lord Avebury: I am afraid that that takes care only of newspapers; it does not seem to take care of broadcasting. Obviously, we shall have to look at the technicalities of it and see whether what the noble Baroness has said about the interpretation of Clause 1 would apply to broadcasting and to tapes as it would apply to documents. As I understand it, the subsection to which she referred me in Clause 1 concerns only the preparation of texts and it would not apply, for example, to the use of tapes which are subsequently to

1337
be broadcast. This would seem to mean from what the noble Baroness was saying, that newspapers would be exempted from registration in respect of computer type-setting systems but that broadcasting authorities would be subject to them in respect of the electronic processing of news items which were held on tape arid which were never subsequently turned into texts. This would seem to be an anomaly which would require further examination and perhaps we could add this to the list of holiday tasks for the Government, although in this matter I am delighted to urge that it be considered by the noble Baroness and not be added to the duties which have already been laid on the noble Lord, Lord Elton. If the noble Baroness would like to consider that and has nothing further to add, I am perfectly happy to leave her the next three months to mull it over, and we shall return to it in October. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 24, line 13. at end insert—
("(5) Personal data which have been published, including data written or otherwise published by the data user about the data subject, are exempt from the subject access provisions if they are held by organisations whose primary function is publishing whether in print, broadcasting or by other means, and the data are held to facilitate publication.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also concerns publishers of ephemera, the newspapers and the broadcasting organisations. I would point out—because the noble Baroness will do so if I do not—that there is a mistake on the second line of the amendment as printed in the Marshalled List, where the word "subject" appears instead of the word "user". I disclaim any responsibility for that error because I did not actually draft this amendment.
The amendment seeks to exempt from the subject access provisions the personal data which have already been published by the data user in the course of his operations and which are held by organisations, the primary function of which is publishing, and I emphasise that that means broadcasting as well as print. Obviously, if the material in question has been published, then any inaccuracies in it will have been noticed by the data subject and he has the ordinary remedies to which I have already referred. He can seek a remedy in the courts for defamation if a newspaper publishes material which is false and damaging to him; he can do the same thing if an item is broadcast which has the same effect. Therefore, there would be no purpose for the protection of the data subject in extending the provisions of this Bill to material of that kind which is held for the limited functions referred to. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: While congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the assiduousness of his efforts to look after the interests of those engaged in publishing, I must however disappoint him by not being able to accept the amendment that he proposes. I fail to see that there is a pressing need to make special exemption from the rights that the Bill bestows on data subjects. I also cannot perceive the justification for special treatment of the data that the noble Lord has identified.
1338
The noble Lord proposes that where data have already been published (including in an autobiographical context) and they are then held by a person '"whose primary function is publishing", then provided that they are held to "facilitate publication" they should be exempt from subject access. It has not been altogether easy to see what the precise effect of the amendment is. However, the overall aim of the amendment seems clear—to eliminate data subject's entitlement to subject access to data with a view to further publication of information about the subject.
The fact that information has been published in the past is not a consideration that has led us elsewhere in the Bill to reduce the safeguards for data subject. And, frankly, I do not see why we should start now. Publication can take place in all kinds of guises—over long periods of years. That does not remove all possible threat to privacy. Indeed, the collection of published tit-bits about an individual can result in a meaty dish when collated together. And, of course, it may well be that published information is inaccurate: should not the data subject have an opportunity to check what is being compiled on a computer from sources that may be fallible?
The amendment would apply to a variety of users, such as the BBC and publishers of regularly revised reference works such as Who's Who, or the compilers of the various profiles of parliamentarians with which we will all be familiar. But here, too. I find it difficult to be persuaded that if the information about the subjects of such works is held on computer and processed, and if those subjects want to check on what is held about them, they should not be able to do so. I cannot think that this will be an area in which the traffic in subject access requests will be great. But where access is sought I suggest that there is no overwhelming reason why it should not be given. Certainly I cannot believe that the data users concerned would face intolerable problems from meeting such requests. If subjects feel in need of the assurance that access will give them, they should be able to have it. In considering exemptions we have always tried not to grant them except when there is very good reason. I have to say that this is a case where I do not see that good reason.
Lord Avebury: I am not sure that this is a point of fundamental importance, but perhaps I can illustrate what I mean so that the noble Baroness can understand it slightly better than I did on the first occasion. If you have an article which has appeared in The Times about you, you can of course obtain a printed copy and, as I understand it. The Times has a service whereby it will sell extracts from back numbers at a price to anybody who wishes to see them, including the person who may be the data subject in question. Therefore, one is not saying that a person is not entitled to have access to material which has appeared in published form. It is simply whether or not the data subject will have a special right of access to it under this Bill if the material is subsequently held in electronic form.
If The Times in future—and it may already have done this for all I know—transfers the whole of the text of every issue on to a computer, we are now conferring a special right on the data subject in respect of whom

1339
an article has appeared in that newspaper beyond the commercial right which he has now to see that information in print on payment of a certain fee. This could be vexatious to the publisher if a large number of persons wish to access computer records in respect of their own entries, and it would interfere with the smooth working of the Bill where subject access is more important. However, I shall consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said and take advice from those concerned with publishing interests. No doubt we shall return to this again in October. I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Other exemptions]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 24. leave out lines 24 and 25.
The noble Lord said: As the Committee well knows, my noble friends and I have adopted a completely moderate tone in moving all our amendments. I hope that I am not going to depart from that worthy habit if I say that if this amendment, or something like it, is not passed then the whole of ths Bill becomes a mockery. It is doubtful indeed whether indeed by this exemption about which I am going to remind your Lordships the convention itself is not breached.
May I just go through the terms of the Bill which I am criticising. It is Clause 33(2). It contains there:
"The Secretary of State may by order exempt from the subject access provisions personal data consisting of information—
(a) the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted by or under any enactment;"
That is any enactment that has existed from the past and is at present an enactment, and obviously any enactment of the future. It goes on:
"(b) which appears to him to be of such a nature that its confidentiality ought to be preserved".
That means literally that in regard to any Government record which is restricted under the Official Secrets Act as a matter of course the Home Secretary has the right to exempt without any restriction any and every Government file from subject access simply because he thinks it ought to be kept confidential. That would include computerised Inland Revenue, DHSS. and Home Office parole index files. All of them could be kept secret from the people they concern under this Bill, not because they are covered by a specific exemption under the Bill, such as prosecution of offenders, but because the Home Secretary thinks that confidentiality is desirable.
If the hour were earlier and if the Committee were fuller, I would have ventured to test the opinion of it upon such a vital matter if the answer that is going to be given either graciously by the noble Baroness, or eloquently by the noble Lord. Lord Elton, is not a satisfactory reply. That will not be the course adopted tonight; but I hope that in essence the Government Front Bench can indicate that they can see the worthiness of this amendment and do something about it between now and Report stage.
Baroness Trumpington: I hope that I shall be charming and eloquent. I was rather surprised to hear
1340
the tone of Lord Mishcon's speech. I was also surprised to see an amendment which seems to widen the Secretary of State's powers rather than restrict them. If we accept it the Secretary of State would not be constrained to making orders only in respect of data to which statutory restrictions on disclosure already apply. This power of exemption would be almost limitless. If your Lordships will bear with me, I will explain how this clause works.
Above all else, I must emphasise that this is not a catch-all provision enabling the Secretary of State to exempt from subject access anything he feels like exempting. Its scope is in fact very narrow, and that is very much our intention. Data to be covered by an order under Clause 33(2) will have to satisfy two tests—both the test in paragraph (a) and the test in paragraph (b). So, in the first instance, there must already be in existence a statutory prohibition or restriction on disclosure of the data in question. Parliament must have decided that there was good reason for information not to be disclosed or only to be disclosed in a certain way. In the second instance, the Secretary of State will have to be convinced, for one reason or another, that the confidentiality afforded by those statutes ought to take precedence over the subject access provisions provided by this Bill. The amendment loses the first leg. so allowing data to be exempted by order only because the Secretary of State believed that confidentiality should be preserved. That is not our wish and it is clearly not the wish of the noble Lord either. So let me disregard the actual effect of this amendment and explain instead the effect of Clause 33(2).
In general the right of subject access under the Bill will override existing legal restrictions on the disclosure of information. That is the effect of Clause 26(4). We are sure that is, broadly speaking, the right approach, because such restrictions normally have been imposed in order to protect the privacy of the person to whom the information relates.
Since under subject access it is only that person who sees the data, the problem does not arise. It would be wrong to allow these restrictions to defeat the subject's own right of access to personal data about himself. However, there are a few instances where, for one reason or another. Parliament has decided that a person should not see information about himself. To take one example, there are restrictions on the right of an adopted person to obtain access to information which would allow him to obtain a copy of his original birth certificate. While the adopted person is below a certain age there is no right of access; thereafter access is conditional upon either the offer of counselling to the person concerned or in some circumstances his acceptance of counselling. It is to meet such cases that Clause 33(2) appears in the Bill empowering the Secretary of State to preserve statutory restrictions where necessary.
But, as I have said, not all statutory restrictions need to be preserved. Since most seek to prevent third parties seeing an individual's information—and a third party cannot benefit from subject access—the mass of restrictions can and should be overriden. That is why the order-making power in Clause 33(2) is qualified by paragraph (b). It has been suggested that Clause 33(2) could be used to exempt from subject

1341
access any data held by Government to which the Official Secrets Act could apply. That is an ingenious suggestion. But it had certainly not occurred to us in drafting the clause and it is certainly not intended to use the clause in that way. Indeed, it would be an astonishingly unusual use of the power, clearly at odds with the thrust of the provisions of the rest of the Bill. Of course, it will not be used for that purpose. Indeed Parliament would have something to say if we tried. As evidence of our good faith we accepted an amendment during the Committee stage of the previous Bill to make orders under Clause 33 subject to the affirmative procedure to enable Parliament to have full control over them.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but I hope that by spelling out the circumstances in which we envisage the order making power being used I have allayed the concern of the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: I appealed to the graciousness of the noble Baroness and it would be singularly ungracious of me if I did not at once acknowledge that she has a technical point which is absolutely correct, quite obviously I have seen that there is some error, but whether it is a typographical error that has occurred I do not know. The intention of the amendment was to remove subsection (2) from the Bill on the ground that the Secretary of State's power was unlimited except that the affirmative resolution procedure would have to go before both Houses of Parliament. Clearly that is not a sufficient safeguard in all circumstances, as we well know.
The main burden that I want the noble Baroness to take with her, as it will save so much time at Report stage, is that this is an overriding power given to the Secretary of State, even to recommend to Parliament that merely because there is some restricting enactment—such as the Official Secrets Act which covers all Government records—and the Secretary of State thinks that confidentiality ought to be preserved or that there are overriding interests more serious than that of the data subject, there ought to be these powers, even if it is to be sanctioned by the affirmative procedure of the House. I think the proper thing for me to do in the circumstances is to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment. I have put on record the intention behind the amendment so that it can be considered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 25, line 20, at end insert—
(" () A person shall be temporarily exempt from the provision of section 5(1) above in any case in which data processed by him is urgently required to be processed as if it were personal data for preventing injury or other damage to the health of any person or persons; and in an appeal under section 13(1) (b) above it shall be a defence to prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the processing was urgently required to be done for that purpose.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point to deal with emergencies. If your Lordships would look at subsection (6) of Clause 33, you will see that there are exemptions for non-disclosure provisions in cases where injury and health are involved in an emergency
1342
situation. There are circumstances in which the emergency situation might not directly and only apply to health. There is also no provision for by-passing the registration provisions, and that is the burden of my amendment.
If I may give your Lordships an example, the situation might occur in which there was a dam which developed a crack on Christmas Eve. It might be necessary to finds out about the designer of the dam, and the computer file that you had on the dam would be a technical one—all about its construction and who built it and, of course, the designer would be within that. There would be particulars of the designer within in it but, as a technical file, it would not have been registered. So you would have a problem, because if you extracted the data on the designer so that he might come and give advice on how the dam might be put right, you would be in breach of the Bill as it stands.
There is a very useful provision, in particular in Clause 7(6), to allow you, once you have communicated with the registrar—and you get special rules under Clause 7(9) to say how you can do it by post—to assume that you have got permission to go ahead with your registration, even if it is only in the post. But in this case it would not work because one can imagine that the registrar's office has shut down on Christmas Eve, there is no post anyway, and you want to ring him up and say. "Look, old boy, is it all right?" But he would not be there and he might not be coming back until the 3rd or 4th of January, so you could not deal with that. And it would not necessarily be a health situation. It could be that, because you have got the crack in the dam on Christmas Eve and you were busy trying to find out about the designer, you have evacuated the population of the town down river from the dam so that there would no question of the people being harmed. On the other hand, if the dam broke it would destroy the town; and that sort of emergency would need to be taken care of.
Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to deal with such an emergency and to build upon subsection (6) to deal with any sort of emergency. I have written in that it is only temporary because, of course, as soon as the registrar comes back from holiday you put the whole thing right. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: As my noble friend Lord Mottistone has indicated, the Bill already recognises in Clause 33(6) that a data user may need to disclose personal data unexpectedly in an emergency. The emergency services might need access, for example, to a list of residents in a given area when dealing with a natural disaster such as a flood. In such circumstances, Clause 33(6) would allow the data to be disclosed without risk of an offence under Clause 5(2)(d), or of any action by the registrar in respect of any breach of the principles. In addition, Clause 33(6) would provide the data user with a defence in a prosecution under Clause 5(2)(d) where he had made an unregistered disclosure in the mistaken but reasonable belief that the Clause 33(6) exemption applied.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone is designed to provide for an analogous situation in the case of unregistered persons. Only personal data "held" in the terms of Clause 1 of the Bill must be registered. Thus a person might keep a

1343
collection of data which happens to include some personal data but he need not register the data so long as he neither processes nor intends to process the personal data by reference to the data subject; in other words, if he has no intention of using the data to find out information about any particular person. He does not, in those circumstances, "hold" the personal data. Under the scenario envisaged by the amendment, however, such a person might, in an emergency, want information about an individual which he happens to know is stored amid the non-personal data but is not registered since he never previously thought of extracting the information. If he did extract it, he would be a data user holding personal data, and, if he had not registered, he would commit an offence.
I have to say that the situation that is envisaged here sorely stretches my credulity. Is it really feasible that somebody, with no previous intention of processing the personal data hidden away among non-personal data that he has, will not only know that the precise personal data exist but will not have the necessary information about the person or people in question in a more readily available form, and will also be able immediately to instruct the computer to process the personal data? I cannot help feeling that such a combination of events is so unlikely as not to require specific amendment of the Bill to meet it.
But even if this most improbable scenario were to arise—and this is perhaps the crunch—the scheme under the Bill as drafted could cope. If the existence of personal data needed in an emergency did come to light, and it was necessary to process the personal data to find out information about a data subject, it would be quite possible to do so without committing an offence under Clause 5(1), as my noble friend fears. What the user would do would be immediately to apply for registration and, under Clause 7, the requirements of the Bill in that respect would be satisfied. But I think that the improbability of the whole situation should be enough to persuade my noble friend that he is concerning himself unnecessarily.
Lord Mottistone: I appreciate the argument that it is a rare occasion, but it really comes down to the point that my noble friend the Minister is saying that the situation is so rare that we do not need to enact for it. I should have thought that that was an invitation for fate to intervene; and when this Bill becomes an Act it will not be my situation—it will be something else, and we shall be caught out. I am not sure that I am wholly convinced by the answer, but I will certainly look at what my noble friend has said.
I do not believe that the situation is fully covered, and I also do not believe that my example is as farfetched as has been suggested. I hope that my noble friend will also have another look, because each time I have discussed this with my other noble friend, the Minister, or his advisers, we have thought of added reasons why this is necessary. It might be worth another look by both of us. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [General ditties of Registrar]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 25, line 30, leave out ("promote") and insert ("ensure").
The noble and learned Lord said: Now we come to an exciting part of the Bill, and with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 59.
Amendment No. 59: Page 25, line 32, at end insert ("and to facilitate the exercise by data subjects of their rights under this Act").
This is a change in the Bill, because the poor registrar was previously a man with massive powers but no duties. It brings to mind many a famous quotation, which it would no doubt be indelicate to remind the Committee about at this late hour. I think the press was the subject of one great observation, but I cannot remember how it went. Your Lordships will remember that there was a certain prerogative which had existed through the ages. The registrar has now been clothed not only with powers but with duties. He is no longer Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. But the difficulty is that the duties are so nebulous and so ineffective, as stated in new Clause 34:
"It shall be the duty of the Registrar so to perform his functions under this Act as to promote the observance of the data protection principles".
What does the word "promote" conjure up in your Lordships' minds? Does it conjure up advertising or possibly winning a general election? Is it promotion of that kind? Or is it sponsorship? Surely the function of this great public official, the registrar, is more significant than that. Therefore we propose, as a modest amendment, to leave out "promote" and to insert "ensure the observance of the data protection principles".
It has been argued and urged more than once as to Amendment No. 59 that the registrar should have a specific duty to help data subjects who will almost always be in a weaker position than the data users who will hold the personal data about them. Therefore it is proposed in Amendment No. 59 that the following words should be inserted at the end of line 32:
"and to facilitate the exercise by data subjects of their rights under this Act".
These are modest proposals to clothe the Hamlet in the case, the registrar, with specified duties which happily he will have powers to enforce. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am a little saddened and surprised that the noble Lords opposite were not entirely enchanted by the word "promote" because it was taken from a proposed amendment of their own at Third Reading last time round when they asked us to place upon the registrar the general duty to promote and facilitate compliance by data users with the data protection principles. We did not like the rest of the amendment but we rather liked "promote", and I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord now finds it nebulous.
If I may paraphrase my brief, the clause places an obligation on the data protection registrar to do whatever is described in line 30, which at present is called "to promote". If the registrar is asked to promote something, he can decide for himself how he sets about doing it. This is what we like about it. The amendment substitutes for the word "promote", which to some extent does have the virtues of

1345
nebulosity, the precise word "ensure", which means that at every opportunity he has got to make certain that the data protection principles are observed by the data users. That gives him absolutely no discretion. On each occasion, if there is any hint of a deviation he must deploy his full forces to see that it is corrected or prevented. Consequently, he cannot concentrate his forces on the major issues which are, apparently to him, those matters which most deserve his attention.
I see that the noble and learned Lord is now being advised as to the category of argument which I am putting forward. I am always disturbed when what I say is so familiar as to fall into a category, because I fear that the answers to it must have been thought out many generations ago. It seems to me to have force that the data protection registrar should have some discretion as to how he pursues his duties. To ask him to promote does preserve that discretion. To ask him to ensure does not.
Turning to Amendment No. 59, to which the noble and learned Lord also spoke, I have just spoken about the question of precision in definition, but in the case of the second amendment the duty is not so clearly defined. I imagine that the data protection registrar could often be in a quandry in deciding where his duty lay. Would it be enough for him to tell data subjects of their rights under the Bill and to advise them on, say, how to seek compensation? Or would this fall short of the subjects' expectations? Should the registrar actually assist them in bringing proceedings before the court?
If that were the case, everybody might seek to enlist his help, no matter what their case. He would then be placed in the invidious position of having to prejudge the merits of cases and I suppose to prejudge the courts' decisions on them when choosing whom to sponsor. All the time of course the registrar would be vulnerable to litigation brought by disappointed complainants, who might claim that he failed in his statutory duty by not taking up their cases. That is leading the registrar into difficult and expensive country.
That expresses the nub of our objection to both amendments. Clause 34 already has plenty of signposts to the registrar; that he is to promote observance of the principles. One of the principles with which he is directly concerned is subject access. Clause 34 (1) says that the registrar is to promote observance of the principles, and one of the principles is directly concerned with subject access. Clause 34 specifically empowers him to give advice to individuals; and it is also quite clear that he can intervene where there has been a breach of the principles. Thus, he can certainly take up the cudgels on behalf of any data subject who has been refused access or who is the subject of inaccurate data.
To go further would involve the registrar in inescapable and trivial duties, or in the expense and unnecessary frittering away of energies which I described earlier. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble and learned Lord at least to hesitate before he goes further with this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I confess that the logic that has been applied to the meaning of these words by the
1346
noble Lord is attractive. I am sorry to be hoist upon the petard of my own promotion, but I had forgotten that it was a responsibility of mine. But with legislation of high technicality and much complexity, such an oversight may be forgotten and forgiven.
Speaking seriously, it is obviously an important point not to impose intolerable duties upon the registrar which could be the subject of litigation and breaches of duty. I will certainly look again at the noble Lord's comments. In the light of this observation and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved. ]
9.38 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 25, line 43, at end insert—
("(4) The Registrar shall investigate complaints by data subjects of infringement of their rights under Part III of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would oblige the registrar to investigate complaints by data subjects of infringements of their rights under Part III of the Act. I seem to remember that we have discussed this proposition also on a previous occasion. Now we do so in the light of the Government's introduction of Clause 34 which, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, does at least lay down some general duties which the registrar has to perform. This is an advance upon what was not in the Bill before.
We rather believe that a degree of precision in the matter of complaints would be advantageous. We would not agree with that which the noble Lord said in reply to the previous amendment—that this means the registrar would be bogged down in a large number of trivial complaints which he is obliged to investigate and that it is better to leave him with the unfettered discretion he has under Clause 34(1).
I do not believe this would be so, because there are other statutory officials who are obliged to investigate complaints and they have no difficulty in disposing of the ones that are manifestly unfounded in a very short space of time and with practically no expenditure of resources. So I think if we laid this duty on the registrar not only would it import a degree of precision into the duty set out in Clause 34(1), but it would say plainly on the face of the wording of the Bill, for the benefit of the data subject, that if he goes along to the registrar and claims that a particular violation of his rights under Part III has occurred then definite steps will be taken to investigate.
For instance, if he claims that he has written to the data user and asked whether the data user holds any personal data of which he is the subject, and a period of six weeks elapses and the data user has not answered, clearly he could claim violation of principle No. 7, that an individual should be entitled "without undue delay" to be informed by any data user whether he holds personal data of which that individual is the subject. The registrar will then take steps to find out why the data user has not replied to the letter, and I presumably compel him to do so with all the force at

1347
his command, in a way which the poor data subject would not be able to do. A large data user might well ignore a letter he receives from one humble individual, but he is not going to ignore a request from the registrar to explain why he has failed to answer the letter. Therefore, investigation of the complaint by the registrar will in nine cases out of 10 remedy the infringement of the individual's rights which is complained of. That perhaps is not a particularly weighty example.
The registrar of course has enormous powers set out in part II of the Bill: Section 10, "If the Registrar is satisfied…"; Section 11, "If the Registrar is satisfied…"; Section 12, "If it appears to the Registrar…". In each of these cases he obviously has to be presented with facts which indicate to him that certain things have happened, and in many of those cases the facts will be presented in the form of a complaint from the data subject, which we believe the registrar ought to be obliged to investigate so as to set in motion the powers that he can exercise under Part II. I am sure the noble Lord will say that the registrar can and will do these things. We simply ask, why not write it into the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I have already tried to make clear the dangers of placing precise duties on the registrar, and I am afraid this amendment does attract those difficulties. Before I deal with them, I think I should point out another. While it would be in order for the registrar to investigate any complaints that subject access had been refused under Clause 21, the remainder of Part III conveys various rights exercisable through the courts. The amendment, as it is drafted at present, requires the registrar to investigate them also. Clearly it would be wrong for the registrar to oversee the work of the courts.
But I do not suppose that is what the noble Lord intends. I would rather address myself to his intention. That is that the registrar should investigate all complaints properly brought before him. Thereby he would, of course, lose his discretion in dealing with complaints made to him in distinguishing between those which were worth following up and those which were entirely trivial. But it is not just a question of eliminating the frivolous or vexatious, which could, I agree, be remedied by a further amendment. There will also be occasions when the registrar must be free not to investigate certain complaints, even though they may not be classified as ill-founded, frivolous or vexatious.
I hope the noble Lord will not take that out of context because I am thinking here that although he may have been alerted to a problem by a number of complaints, individual investigation of each one may not seem to him to be the most effective way of dealing with and resolving the issue. A single exemplary case might suffice at very much less cost and at rather greater speed. It is I am afraid the same old argument. Specific duties tie the registrar's hands in advance and we tie them, if we tie them now, when we cannot yet see how he would most successfully approach the matters that will concern him. A formal complaints procedure would require a good deal more provision than the amendment offers and we should not impose
1348
it on him regardless of his own views on the merits of such action when the time comes.
If a data subject believes that his right to compensation, correction or erasure under Clauses 22 to 24 have been infringed that is a matter for the courts and not for the registrar. If the subject feels that his right to access has been infringed he can already go to the registrar for action in respect of a breach of the seventh principle and the registrar is already under a duty to act to promote observance of the principles. By that means the Bill as cast makes clear where the registrar's duty lies without depriving him of all discretion where he believes that investigation would serve no useful purpose or where he could be better served another way. That, I must repeat, is far preferable to tying the registrar's hands as, regrettably, this amendment would.
I hope that I have explained to the noble Lord why we feel that the Bill is competent to do what he wants in the way that it is drafted and that it would not be advisable to be more precise.
Lord Avebury: I do not feel that it would be undesirable, as the noble Lord said, but I shall not prolong the argument at this hour. I intend to pursue the matter on Report; but now I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Application to government departments and police]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 26, line 43. at end insert—
(" (6) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section a chief officer of police or chief constable shall not be treated as a servant of the Government department to which his responsibilities or duties relate").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to add a sixth subsection which reads:
"For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section a chief officer of police or chief constable shall not be treated as a servant of the Government department to which his responsibilties or duties relate."
The purpose of the amendment therefore is to ensure that a chief constable must register police computers separately from the rest of the Home Office functions. We submit that the amendment is made necessary by the fact that the Bill in its re-drafted form allows disclosure to servants or agents by a data user or person carrying on a computer bureau. Therefore, persons in the public service of the Crown have to be identified as servants or agents of a particular department. It is clear from the interpretation in Clause 39 that organisations such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Commission for Racial Equality which were set up as,
"a body or authority exercising statutory functions"
are a "government department" for the purposes of the Bill and that they will have to register separately.
However, the position of a chief constable, in our submission, is anomalous. A chief constable is a

1349
person in the public service of the Crown, and particularly outside London his responsibilities or duties relate to the Home Office. Therefore chief constables are included, perhaps unintentionally, as people who relate to the Home Office as data users. So it is possible for police computers to be registered by the Home Office as data users.
The amendment is put forward purely for clarification; but I trust that the Minister will be able to say that if we are correct in our reasoning then there is no earthly reason why the amendment, or one very similar to it, should not be incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am sure that the noble Lord will understand if I try to reply very briefly to an amendment which has required a great deal of research. This is a tortuous area to which we are addressing ourselves. The concern behind this amendment is that Clause 36(1) could have the unintended effect of making chief constables servants of a Government department—or more particularly of the Home Office—rather than separate data users. This is certainly not the Government's intention, nor, I am advised, is there any question that this could possibly be the effect of Clause 36(1) as drafted.
First, a chief constable would not be regarded as a person in the public service of the Crown. This would be contrary to the constitutional position of chief constables who have the sole operational responsibility for the policing of their area. Secondly, the responsibilities and duties of a chief constable would not, on any normal interpretion of the phrase, be said to relate to any Government department, including the Home Office. Again this would be contrary to the traditional independence of the office of chief constable. I should emphasise from experience that there is a great sensitivity about explaining that this link does not exist. Thirdly, an interpretation of Clause 36(1) which resulted in chief constables being treated as servants of a department rather than data users would make a nonsense of Clause 36 subsections (3) to (5), because these are drafted, and would only be necessary, on the assumption that chief constables will be data users.
The Government have looked carefully at the effect of Clause 36(1). I quite understand why on the face of it it would appear that the amendment is necessary, but I hope that, by explaining to the noble Lord the conventions, which are well established, about the relationships of these people, he will see that there is no danger for his amendment to avoid.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We certainly welcome that assurance from the Minister. I am sure that his statement of the constitutional position is well understood on this side of the Committee and certainly by me as a former junior Minister in the Home Office dealing with police matters. Upon that very full assurance by the Minister, we are pleased to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Data held, and services provided, outside the United Kingdom]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.62:
Page 27, line 31. leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This is entirely a probing amendment to seek clarification of the meaning of Clause 37(5). This is another amendment on which I have had advice from the CBI. It seems to us that if data are processed wholly outside the United Kingdom but used in the United Kingdom, they fall outside the legislation by virtue of no longer being data within the meaning of Clause 1. It is also difficult to see to whom in the United Kingdom the subsection applies, since, if the data are processed wholly outside the United Kingdom, control is also outside the United Kingdom. I should be most grateful if my noble friend could clarify this for me. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Clause 37(1) provides that the Bill does not apply to a data user in respect of data held outside the United Kingdom. But if one looks at Clause 37(2) it can be seen that we use these terms in a rather special sense, so that data are to be regarded as "held" where control over the contents and use of the data is exercised, irrespective of where the data are processed. Broadly speaking then, the Bill will apply where the person in charge within a data user bureau is within the United Kingdom.
This is, I would submit, the sensible approach, because it is these people who can ensure that the operations comply with the Bill. Given the international nature of the information technology industry and the capabilities of the equipment, a data user might utilise processing facilities belonging to bureaux or himself in a number of countries. Thus it would be arbitrary, and very difficult in practice, to make the whereabouts of the processing of personal data the sole criterion for the territorial effect of the Bill. This is why Clause 37 concentrates on the person in charge who may or may not be in the same country as the processing facilities used.
There are, however, two exceptions to this. First, Clause 37(3) provides that where aperson outside the United Kingdom controls the contents and use of data as mentioned in Clause 1(5), through a servant or agent within the United Kingdom, the servant or agent shall be treated as doing these things on his own behalf. This is to ensure that where a person such as a branch manager is effectively in charge of operations within the United Kingdom he cannot escape the obligations under the Bill simply by pointing to the ultimate foreign control, so claiming not himself to be the data user, and therefore depriving the registrar of anybody to whom to look in order to require compliance.
The second exception is set out in Clause 37(5). As is clear from what I have said, the whereabouts of the processing of personal data is in general irrelevant for the purposes of the territorial effect of the Bill. But where data are processed and used wholly outside the United Kingdom it would be wrong in principle to attempt to take jurisdiction simply because the person in charge happened to be in the United Kingdom directing operations that had effect in another country, where quite different data protection law and practices might apply.

1351
This is a complex clause, but I am afraid that the international nature of the industry and the capabilities of the technology force this upon us. Given this complexity, my noble friend may wish to reflect on what I have said before committing himself; but I hope that when he has studied it he will agree that, on the whole. Clause 37 represents a sensible and practical approach.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord responds to that reply, I should like to add a single sentence in support of the Minister by saying that it is not just a matter of who controls and uses the data; and he is quite right in saying that the place where the data are processed is not the valid consideration. The fact is that with the networking of computers many data users do not even know where their data are being processed. The data could be going on to a network which operates in London, in Frankfurt and in San Jose, California, and one really has no idea where it is being processed. Where it is actually being processed is simply a matter of availability.
Lord Mottistone: I was ready to accept my noble friend's remarks without qualification until the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, supported him. My suspicions are now aroused, and I shall have to look carefully at what my noble friend has said. It seemed to me that what he said made a lot of sense, but there might still be a loophole, and we shall have to have a look. I quite understand that the matter is complex, and strangely enough, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to. [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
9.58 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 29. line 28, leave out from ("above") to end of line 15 on page 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: Now we reach the omega of the Committee stage. The point that arises under this amendment is the old one about the fact that the registrar's powers to serve enforcement notices imposing requirements to be complied with are put in a state of suspense for a period of two years. The basis of this proposal was the fear that the registrar might be overwhelmed for that period of time by the duties and tasks being imposed upon him. It was considered that the two-year period of emasculation, or whatever is the appropriate word, was sensible in the circumstances.
In the meantime there have been removed from the registrar's purview both the payroll and the accounting systems, which were expected to account for much of the burden of work that he would have to face; so that now his initial burden, at any rate, will be rather lighter, and there is even less reason why he should not
1352
have the power to remedy even major scandals which become manifest from his own register. If the clause remains as it stands, he will be powerless to act.
As that is so, subject to anything that the noble Lord the Minister may say, it raises a serious problem under the convention. If the registrar—he is after all the executive and the supervising officer—has no powers to ensure compliance with the principles of the convention, it could indeed raise serious doubts as to whether we could properly ratify the convention in good faith. Even if that is not a binding, technical, legal problem that would face him, it could mean, were it to become widely known, that we could hardly expect the other convention parties to treat us as having conformed with the terms of the convention. It raises a serious matter. It is not merely the effect of his being left powerless to deal with what could well have become a major scandal manifest from his own register but our being exposed as having a dog that had a bark but no bite—a registrar with no powers effectively for a period of two years to intervene. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: We have come to the end of a second long, hot afternoon and evening. It is late and I shall detain the Committee but a moment. I hope however that your Lordships will allow me to cast my eye a little wider than this amendment. The exchanges that take place in this Chamber, the results reflected on the statute book, often have a profound effect on a great number of people for a very long time. That gives an importance to such exchanges of which we are never unaware. Compared with their results, the exchanges themselves are pretty brief; but they represent only a fraction of the effort that the Members of your Lordships' House put into legislation. It is only the tip of the iceberg that those outside the House are ever likely to see.
Legislation is an enormously complex process involving all the critical faculties and much consultation. For those in Government, it is just a part—if an onerous one—of the job. For those not in Government, it is a labour almost of love. It is enormously to the credit of this House that it is so thoroughly done. Those who bear the heaviest part of the burden tend to be the spokesmen of the Opposition parties who, without a Civil Service to support them, manage to give as good as they get, month after month and year after year, and do it with precious little thanks in prospect. This is a service that noble Lords who are not in office render to the country. It is voluntarily and tirelessly given.
Much that comes forward is of course hostile to the Government and Ministers reject it. But they do so after a searching consideration both of what is proposed and what they, the Government, intend. That is just as beneficial to the whole community as are those improvements that are actually incorporated in legislation. Beneficial as all these objections may be, the repeated process can become lengthy and try the patience of your Lordships, particularly if the responses are over solemn or over long. The reason that I say all this now is that in trying to avoid being ponderous, it is all too easy to appear merely dismissive of proposals that deserve careful consideration and which have, indeed, received it.

1353
I fear that I seem to have fallen into that trap myself in dealing with a serious, carefully considered proposal put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and his friends for statutory codes of practice when last we were in Committee. I may have done it unwittingly at other times and to other noble Lords. I therefore thought it right to explain that both I and the Government have a proper regard for their work and that of all your Lordships. I am only sorry if, at any time, this should not have been apparent. I could find no more suitable place to put that grace note except on the last amendment. I have caused my remarks on the last amendment to be somewhat eviscerated in order to leave room for that grace note. I hope that I do not fall instantly into the trap that I have just described.
Turning to what the noble and learned Lord has put before your Lordships, it is clear to all of us that time will be needed to bring the scheme in the Bill fully into effect. The White Paper indicated that registration would take a considerable time—perhaps two years. To require immediate compliance would quite unreasonably increase the cost burden on both public and private sector uses. Thus, broadly speaking the Bill provides for a transitional period of some two years during which data users and computer bureaux can come gradually into compliance with the principles.
One has only to consider the practical problems facing data users to realise that such arrangements are necessary. There will be the need to scrutinise the security precautions they take to protect their data. It will be necessary to consider the means by which data are collected. Steps will have to be taken to check that the personal data held are adequate, relevant and not excessive. I really think that the noble Lord, who has taken great care to try to resolve the difficulties of the first onslaught of work, has provided something which would not in fact be successful.
Obviously if the Bill left the registrar to determine when compliance will be required, we would expect him to adopt a sensible approach. But most users would, if they knew that they could be ordered by the registrar to comply with the principles at any moment, want so to comply from the start. That is how responsible users work. So the whole point of the transitional arrangements would be lost. And then, of course, there is the question of the civil remedies. The registrar can obviously have no role in dispensing with those in particular cases and therefore the Bill must make appropriate provision in that respect.
Lastly I should deal with the point raised about delay in ratifying the convention. The Government have been criticised for delaying ratification by allowing for a two-year transitional period. But some delay, as I have explained, is inevitable before the scheme is fully operational. The important thing is for the United Kingdom to establish a workable scheme as soon as possible while not imposing unreasonable burdens on data users by setting unrealistic deadlines. I would reiterate that the Government regard Clause 40 as making sensible provision for the implementation of the scheme on a reasonable timescale. I would urge noble Lords opposite to accept that this is preferable to the approach which they have, with great diligence and goodwill, put forward in the last amendment to this Bill.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Let me say first of all that we note and are grateful for the generous tribute that the noble Lord has paid to the Opposition both below the Gangway (if that is the right phrase) and—if there was somebody there—on the mountain heights: to those who would have been behind me had they known what compliments were coming. I regard the duty of Opposition as being not merely to oppose but, indeed, largely to expose—to expose shortcomings and limitations in Government. I have always endeavoured to conduct my opposition politically on that basis and to provide such practical assistance as can be given, short of out and out rejection and opposition.
Here we deal with a difficult, very technical field where a matter of great importance, which I am bound to say has not been sought to be tackled before legislatively—namely, the protection of the privacy of the subject and consideration of the new menaces of computerisation—obviously raises, and has raised, serious and difficult problems. We have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to play our part.
We still regard the Bill as inadequate. Nevertheless, we have done our best to contribute to its improvement. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Mishcon had to leave before hearing the conclusion of our proceedings. But I should like in my turn to express our gratitude—and I think I speak for the whole Committee in doing so—to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who has borne the heat and burden of the day, nobly assisted by colleagues from time to time, in a way which was patient and, at the end of the day, most generous.
So far as the immediate matter under consideration —the final amendment—is concerned, I will certainly consider what has been said. Whether the extent of the pressures on the registrar's time is still so severe, as is suggested, can perhaps be the subject of further thought. One of the gratifying features that has emerged today has been the willingness of the Government to present an open mind about the matter which has given rise to very grave concern in this House: the immigration question. I feel that we shall be parting with hope of better things to come and also the hope of a good Recess for the noble Lord and his colleagues.
Lord Avebury: Before we take leave of this amendment, may I say how very much we appreciated the kind and generous words of the Minister about the work of the Opposition. Encouraged by these completely unmerited encomiums, we shall quadruple our efforts at the Report stage.
However, sometimes it would be easier for the Opposition to do their job in the Chamber if they were provided with such facilities as one would expect in a normal office. Not to have a single square millimetre in the Palace of Westminster makes life just a little bit difficult. To have to buy one's own copy paper and carbon paper, and such things of that kind as one uses in a normal office, makes one believe that although the Government always say on the Floor of the House or in your Lordships' Committee that they want to see an efficient working Chamber, they are not really prepared to provide your Lordships with the means of

1355
carrying out their duties. But perhaps that would be an ungracious note on which to end.
I am hoping that attention will be given to this matter by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who has always been such a champion of Back-Benchers. I am hoping that he may see his way to doing something to improve the conditions under which we labour and make the contribution that we make as an Opposition more efficient than it has been in the past.
This amendment in particular requires further examination. I should just like to make this suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. If we look at the procedures that have been adopted in other countries and we find that the timescale can be shortened, that is the route that we ought to take. The longer it takes to bring the full powers of the registrar into operation, the more data users will be encouraged to stray into undesirable practices knowing that the registrar will not catch up with them for a very long time.
Therefore, I believe that if we want the Bill to work then we want the data protection principles to be thoroughly in operation and to enter into the convention in spirit as well as in letter, we should try to shorten the time-scale. I suggest that it could be something like a year before the powers of enforcement are brought into practice. If we look overseas and we find that this has been done without causing any difficulty to the enforcement agencies in other European countries which have signed the convention, we ought to be able to do it with our great skill in these matters in administration generally in Great Britain.
We look forward to discussing this again in the autumn, with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We hope that he has a restful time during the Recess but that he does his homework and comes back full of good answers, as he has been this afternoon. We too are most grateful to him in particular for the undertaking that he has given on Clause 28. If we can have the correct result as we see it from out deliberations on that matter, then all the time we have spent on this Chamber will be fully worthwhile.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his support on this amendment. May I also thank him for his tremendous contribution to our discussions. He has shown very great conscientiousness, energy and thoroughness, and has obviously been willing to receive and to react to cries for help from all quarters—as most generously he always does. He plays a great part in the proceedings of the House. Although we would have liked some kind of indication, even of a 12-month substitution for the two-year period, in the light of what has been said, and with the opportunity of a long period of further consideration of the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Remaining clause and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at quarter past ten o'clock.

  CROWN COMMON, PLYNLIMON: FENCING
  CROWN COMMON, PLYNLIMON: FENCING
  "HOME DEFENCE AND THE FARMER"
  "HOME DEFENCE AND THE FARMER"
  NORTHERN IRELAND: THE RAMSAR CONVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: THE RAMSAR CONVENTION
  POLICE CELLS: ACCESS BY JOURNALISTS
  POLICE CELLS: ACCESS BY JOURNALISTS
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES
  REMAND PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  REMAND PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS