Sitting of 23 March 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT
  Mr. Speaker: Order. In one more effort to help the House, I make an appeal for supplementary questions and answers to be briefer than they have been lately, otherwise we shall not get through the Order Paper —[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice hon. Members saying "Hear, hear", and I am very grateful.
  ENVIRONMENT

    Housing Repair Grants
    Mr. Bob Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he decided not to alter the qualifying age for houses for repair grants.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): We have decided not to alter the qualifying age of houses for repair grants for the moment because the 1981 English house condition survey still showed that the incidence of serious disrepair was concentrated overwhelmingly in the pre-1919 housing stock.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister answer all the representations that are continually made about the Stockbridge area in my constituency, where 15 owner-occupiers have been blighted for more than 14 years by motorway proposals? They have, consequently, deferred repairs continually to the point where some of them—for example, those who have retired from work—cannot afford to carry out the repairs. Although the houses were constructed in 1939, surely these people should qualify for repair grants in compensation for the blight that has been visited on them, not by themselves, but by the Government?
    Mr. Stanley: I am certainly aware of the hon. Gentleman's correspondence with my hon. Friend about the problems in Stockbridge. However, we cannot have a different rule for Stockbridge compared with the rest of the country. The fact remains that about 93 per cent. of all the houses shown in the English house condition survey as being in serious disrepair are pre-1919, and it must make sense to concentrate the major effort in repair grants on those properties.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that a far wider issue is involved and that the most disastrous flats and houses are those that were built in the past 25 years by industrial building methods? Will the Minister
    846
    therefore make available additional grants to cover the whole cost of their repair and renovation, which would also provide jobs for a large number of unemployed building trade workers?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that repair grants are intended for properties in the private sector under the home improvement grant legislation. The wider problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions in connection with industrialised building is concentrated almost entirely in the public sector, and here we hope that local authorities will make full use of their increased allocations both this year and next.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Merseyside Task Force
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present working of the Merseyside task force; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): The task force continues to liaise with local authorities, public agencies and the private sector in taking forward an increasing list of initiatives on Merseyside. In addition to my frequent visits to the area, I receive regular reports from the task force.
    Mr. Parry: Will the Secretary of State use his influence and support the task force by trying to unravel local government bureaucracy and red tape in this attempt to provide much needed jobs on Merseyside? I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the recent case I sent to him concerning an application in Aintree which would provide hundreds of jobs. Will he also seek to use his influence in the demolition and development of the Tate and Lyle site, which will provide many hundreds of jobs in the deprived Vauxhall area of my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman also—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to get on with.
    Mr. Parry: May I ask the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions.
    Mr. Parry: Does—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to continue, but I tell the rest of the House that those who have questions further down the Order Paper will suffer.
    Mr. Parry: Does the Secretary of State intend to remain the Minister for Merseyside?
    Mr. King: In view of the number of visits that I have already paid, I had hoped that there would not be much doubt on that matter. I intend to take a close interest in the affairs of Merseyside.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I think that implicit in his question is a recognition of the dedicated way in which the task force is doing its work. Certainly it is doing all that it can to help in difficult circumstances. Might I add that the English Industrial Estates Corporation is closely concerned, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, in my presence, recently made the awards for the prize-giving for

    847
    the Tate and Lyle site and the possible redevelopment, which I hope will go ahead on a satisfactory basis. May I further add that I very much hope that everyone—I say this in the light of the present situation—will realise the importance of improving the industrial position on Merseyside and giving the best possible reputation to industrial activities there, which could not be more important at this time.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What I have said about long supplementaries also applies to Ministers.
    Mr. Alton: As one person in five on Merseyside is now out of work, what is the task force doing to attract new investment from big companies and financial institutions?
    Mr. King: It is incredible that the hon. Gentleman can represent Liverpool in the House and ask Ministers what they can do to attract large-scale industrial investment to Merseyside at the time of a major industrial dispute that is doing enormous damage to Merseyside's reputation. I hope that he will join me in urging the earliest possible return to work so that the damage done to Merseyside can be minimised.
    Mr. Hoyle: It is the management.
    Mr. Squire: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about his renewed commitment to Merseyside. Is he aware that Merseyside councils, of a variety of political persuasions, have made clear to the Select Committee how much they welcome the action taken by the task force over a sustained period and how much they look forward to its work continuing?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive comments. The task force is doing valuable work and I intend that to continue.
    Mr. Oakes: Instead of hiding behind the Ford dispute, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much private capital has been attracted by the Merseyside task force, the success of which was the proud boast of his predecessor?
    Mr. King: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was at the opening of the new flats, Minster court, which were developed entirely by private capital out of redundant public sector housing, but that is one example to which I draw attention. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the figures today, but I shall try to give him some details of the new ventures that have taken place.
    I am not hiding behind the Ford dispute. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that when one is trying to attract industry to Merseyside one cannot exaggerate the damage that results from such a dispute.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: In order to enable the task force to work more effectively in Bootle, will the Minister include the inner city part of Bootle in the partnership area with Liverpool? As he is to remain as the Minister for Merseyside, will he arrange an urgent meeting with those Members of Parliament who represent Merseyside? When he next visits Merseyside will he meet the Labour representatives of the inner city part of Sefton, not the council leaders, who come from Southport and are resented by the people of Bootle?
    Mr. King: I am willing to meet any hon. Members to discuss the problems of Merseyside. If there is any doubt
    848
    about that I confirm my willingness to do so now from the Dispatch Box. If there are points that councillors want to raise with me, I shall be happy to talk to them as well.

    Water Supplies (Nitrate Levels)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present procedures for monitoring nitrate levels in public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): Water undertakers regularly monitor the level of nitrates in public water supplies and there are effective arrangements to inform local public health authorities where recommended levels are exceeded, so that any necessary action can be taken.
    These levels are based on worldwide evidence, and are recommended by the World Health Organisation. Provided they are observed we see no grounds for concern over the effects on health of nitrates in water supplies. I am reminding regional water authorities of their responsibilities in this matter.
    Mr. Taylor: As nitrate pollution is increasing and broke through the 50mg per litre level twice in Essex last year, is there not a case for placing some restriction on the extravagant use of nitrates by farmers in the same way as industrialists are subject to severe restraints to ensure that they do not pollute water supplies? Should not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show his concern by asking water boards to report to him when excess levels are created?
    Mr. Shaw: I accept the point behind my hon. Friend's question. I reiterate that I am concerned about the increase of any pollutant, but he will be aware that treatment for nitrates is carried out which enables both potable water and high agricultural production to be maintained. That must be our objective.
    Mr. Pavitt: In addition to nitrate content, has the Minister seen surveys of mercury content? Is he aware that more than 1 million people are using National Health Service hearing aid batteries that contain mercury? What is the Minister doing to ensure that we are not polluted by that?
    Mr. Shaw: I am well aware that there are pollutants from batteries. That is a matter that county and refuse disposal authorities consider carefully. If the hon. Gentleman knows of a particular case, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Is my hon. Friend aware that Dorset spring water is now available in the House. The level of nitrates in that water can go from nil up to 20–30 mg without damage to health because that is well within the permitted level? Is it not nonsensical that many people are scaremongering when there is no need for them to do so?
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Rubbish.
    Mr. Shaw: I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). It is true that at present levels there is no ground for concern whatever. The nitrate content of water supplies varies substantially from one part of the year to another.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that almost everyone who has studied the problem will regard his reply

    849
    as somewhat complacent in view of the links between nitrosamines and cancer? Does he not understand that nitrates in drinking water present a potential medium-term serious threat to public health? What plans has he to deal with that? Has he considered the possibility of putting a tax on nitrogenous fertiliser?
    Mr. Shaw: I am well aware of the anxiety that has been expressed. The best way to deal with it is to invite research. That, I am glad to say, is being done by the Medical Research Council, which has produced four studies into the problem.

    Rates
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of non-metropolitan district councils that are intending to raise a lower rate for 1983–84 than 1982–83.
    Mr. King: On the information currently available about 80 non-metropolitan district councils are intending to raise a lower local rate in 1983–84 than in 1982–83.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend will be aware that that answer will be satisfactory to the ratepayers of those councils. Is he aware that amongst that number is the Conservative-controlled borough of Hove, which is proposing to levy a lower rate next year for the sixth time in eight years, which demonstrates its skill in carrying out its responsibilities? Does not the borough of Hove demonstrate that there are far too many Socialist-controlled local authorities which disregard their responsibility to deliver their services and utilise their assets as effectively as possible and therefore impose unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on industry and households?
    Mr. King: I congratulate the borough of Hove and those other boroughs that have reduced their rates as we said would he possible. I hope that many of the boroughs that indulge more in propaganda and pay less real attention to value for money will change their priorities.
    Mr. Ashton: How many of those low-rate councils have provided free bus passes and cheap television licences for pensioners, have not cut their services to the disabled and have not made their work forces redundant in the past two or three years to secure reduced rates? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give a true comparison on those lines?
    Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the matter objectively he will see that the truth is that some of those authorities with the highest rates often provide poor services as well.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Name them.
    Mr. King: The message that we have sought to deliver, and which I hope the hon. Gentleman will join in supporting, is that value for money is a concept that should be supported regardless of political party.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can my right hon. Friend give any message to Lancaster city council, which is in a fortunate position similar to that of Hove, about its derelict land grant application, bearing in mind that it was told in February that some £2 million would be available if it was spent during the current financial year, which is clearly impossible? Is there any hope that such allocations can be carried forward into the next financial year?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend's question deals with capital expenditure, not rate levels. I admire his ingenuity in seeking to raise that question now, but the answer is no, Sir.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Labour-controlled council of Darlington, which has been able to cut 5p off its domestic rate because of the £640,000 profit made by its extremely efficient direct labour organisation?
    Mr. King: I am delighted to welcome the conversion of the right hon. Gentleman to the cause of lower rates. He spends most of his time at the Dispatch Box claiming that higher rates do no damage to people or to industry.
    Mr. James Lamond: Answer the question.
    Mr. King: I certainly join in congratulating any authority that recognises the importance of rate levels, and I hope that the message of the Darlington reduction in rate levels is better understood by the GLC, ILEA and Islington.

    Council House Building
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures available for the number of council house building starts; and how these compare with the corresponding figures for 1978.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the public sector house building starts for 1982 and 1983 to the most recent practicable date.
    Mr. Stanley: There were 93,000 public sector starts in England in 1978 compared with 44,000 last year, of which 28,000 were for local councils. The provisional estimates for January 1983 are 4,000 public sector starts, 3,000 of them for local councils.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that, while hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome home ownership, there are millions of people for whom it is never conceivable, in any circumstances, that they could become home owners? Is it not clear from the Minister's figures that he has destroyed all hope for hundreds of thousands of such people who are on council house waiting lists?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not agree, although I recognise that there are those who will not be able to afford to buy. That is why we have been increasing the provision for local authorities over the past two years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute towards making additional rented accommodation available in his authority, I hope that he will start prevailing on Cannock Chase council to make greater use of its allocation plus receipts, because three quarters of the way through this financial year it had spent only 24 per cent. of its allocation plus receipts.
    Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the Minister is not aware that the Tories and the Liberals have now taken control of the Cannock Chase district council.
    Mr. Skinner: Are not the real reasons that these figures are the lowest since the 1920s that the Tories have cut the housing subsidies and grants by half, that rents have risen by more than 125 per cent., and that 400,000 building

    851
    workers are on the dole? Is the Minister aware that during this week the Labour party has produced a document that lays out plans for jobs for the construction workers, a use for those millions of bricks lying unused, a freeze on rents, and homes for those who badly need them?
    Mr. Stanley: I assure the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) that I am fully aware that the Liberals are the biggest single party on the Cannock Chase council, because I saw the council about the poor performance on the right to buy under Labour control a few months ago.
    I have seen the document to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) refers. I say to him what I said to the hon. Member for Cannock. If he is really exercised about increased jobs in the construction industry and increased housing provision, I hope that he will turn to the Bolsover council—which I am well aware is Labour controlled—as three quarters of the way through the financial year it had spent only 43 per cent. of its allocation plus receipts.
    Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister remains inaccurate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best possible way for councils to reduce their housing lists is to make sure that they do not leave houses lying empty for months, and sometimes years on end, by encouraging their tenants to take advantage of the tenants charter to sublet, and to convince others to do as the former agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did and buy their homes so that the councils can reinvest the capital receipts in building new homes to rent?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. It is a matter of considerable concern that all local authorities should make the best use of existing council housing stock. When about 20,000 local authority dwellings are vacant for more than a year, and 300,000 local authority dwellings are difficult to let, local authorities should be concentrating on making proper use of existing housing stock.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister acknowledge that Labour authorities in particular are likely to spend their full allocation of HIP money by the end of this financial year and that he cannot draw conclusions on three or six months' spending? Will he acknowledge that even if the HIP allocations are fully spent the number of council houses started in the best two years under the Tory Government will be less than in any one year under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not agree that all Labour authorities will spend their HIP allocation. If the hon. Lady will look at the table that I put in the Library for expenditure over the first three quarters of this financial year she will see that many authorities, of all political persuasions, look like not merely not spending their allocations plus receipts, but not even spending their allocations.
    As to general progress, the hon. Lady should look at the complete picture for housing. It shows that in the past year public sector housing starts have increased by 39 per cent., that private sector starts increased by 20 per cent. for the second year running, that public sector home improvements rose by 26 per cent. and that private sector home
    852
    improvements are at their highest since 1974. The hon. Lady should be congratulating the Government on their performance on housing.

    Gleneagles Agreement
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the Gleneagles agreement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I receive many differing representations on this subject.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister investigate breaches of the Gleneagles agreement such as the recent case when the Transkei rugby team came here, with special facilities laid on for it by the British consulate in Cape Town, yet he, the Minister responsible for sport, apparently did not know that the team was here until after it had arrived? Will he also investigate the South African slush fund designed to smash the Gleneagles agreement, such as the so-called "Freedom in Sport" campaign, which is run by Right-wing extremists such as the Tory hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle)?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I have no locus to intervene or investigate those organisations. The visit by the Transkei rugby team was not a visit of a representative team. It could not be, because Her Majesty's Government do not recognise Transkei, or any of the South African so-called homelands, as independent. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, as there is no provision in the United Kingdom visa regulations to deny visas merely because the applicants wish to take part in sport, we have no locus to prevent that taking place.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are opposed to racial discrimination in sport and that anyone considering sending a representative team to South Africa should take into account the possible repercussions on sports other than their own?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I endorse my right hon. Friend's observations and echo everything that he said. I repeat to the House our complete commitment to the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport in 1977. We stand by our commitments, made at the Lusaka and Melbourne Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, that multi-racial sport is supreme.
    Mr. Denis Howell: In view of the assessment that I have made that in the past year South African sources have either paid out or have on offer to sportsmen, mostly British, a sum of between £5 million and £6 million for the purpose of undermining and severely damaging British sporting interests, what assessment has the Minister been able to make of the dangers that this is providing to the Edinburgh Commonwealth games next time round, to the future of international test cricket and to other major international sporting events, which are now seriously threatened by this financial seduction?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I shall not comment on the figure that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. I can only hope that everyone will recognise the potential seriousness of what is happening and the impact that it could have on our relationships elsewhere. I simply hope that all governing bodies will draw their players' attention to the need to reject these short-term financial inducements. They do

    853
    lasting damage to the reputations of governing bodies. The funds are directed towards one objective—to disrupt our highly successful Commonwealth sporting links.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend so wedded to the Gleneagles agreement that he is willing to submit to the blackmail and bullying to which he is now being subjected by black African countries? Will he now come clean and admit that the conditions under the Gleneagles agreement by which South Africa was accused of organising sport on the basis of race, colour and ethnic origin, do not exist in that country?
    Mr. Flannery: Nonsense.
    Mr. Carlisle: Therefore, for the sake of the freedom of the individual and the freedom of sport, the agreement should now be abandoned.
    Mr. Flannery: If they did not exist the hon. Gentleman would not go there.
    Mr. Macfarlane: The Gleneagles agreement, or the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport, were discussed at the Melbourne conference. It was made quite clear by all Heads of Government at that meeting, just 18 months ago, that we continue to uphold the principles of that declaration.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: I appreciate that we live in a free society, but is not the way in which South African officials undermine our major sporting organisations and corrupt our leading sportsmen by financial and other inducements insidious? Should not the Government make it clear to those officials that the way in which to obtain full participation in international sport is to insist that their Government get rid of this despicable apartheid system?
    Mr. Macfarlane: Everyone has his own views about what may or may not be done. The hon. Gentleman must understand my locus on this subject. That is why I have urged governing bodies to take an opportunity to talk to their players to ensure that they do not go for the offered short-term financial inducements. Present circumstances are fraught with risk and danger.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend agree that as genuine efforts have been made by members of all races in South Africa to make sport multiracial, many South Africans are now saying, "Yes, we want stick but we should also occasionally like a little bit of carrot when we do what is right"? Is it not time that we occasionally saw some carrot?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I note what my hon. Friend said. Perhaps these issues will be discussed at some future date. I return to the decision in Melbourne in September 1981 to uphold the principles of the declaration.

    Foreign Countries (Sporting Links)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibility his Department has for promoting sporting links with foreign countries; and what proportion of his Department's efforts are devoted to South American countries.
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am keen to foster good international sporting relations and am always willing to give advice and assistance where appropriate. I cannot estimate the proportion of my Department's efforts devoted to South American countries.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister think that the invitation to the England football team to visit Rio de Janeiro was withdrawn?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave a short while ago.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend tell me—there is nothing personal in this—why a supremely non-interventionist Government should interfere in sporting matters?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I was not aware that we had intervened in sporting matters. The premise that my hon. Friend advances is entirely incorrect.

    Refuse Collection (Privatisation)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have now privatised refuse collection; and what information he has as to the approximate savings or additional expenditure involved as a result.
    Mr. King: Fourteen authorities have made arrangements that will save about £29 million in total over the contract periods involved. A considerable number of others are reassessing the ways in which their services are provided, to ensure that efficiency and economy are achieved.
    Mr. Greenway: Have not privately run schemes served as a catalyst for the great improvement in refuse collection in both the public and private sectors, as well as saving ratepayers the enormous sums of money that my right hon. Friend has outlined? Is that not desirable and is it not also true that these are highly efficient schemes?
    Mr. King: In all services that are provided by public bodies, whether central or local government, there is a requirement and a duty on all concerned to ensure that the services that are needed are provided in the most efficient way. It is clear that, in many cases, going out to tender for refuse collection has saved substantial sums of money for ratepayers.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council has privatised both refuse collection and street cleaning, since when the Members of Parliament for Wandsworth have been inundated with complaints about dirty streets in the borough? Is he further aware that anyone who goes from Lambeth to Wandsworth knows when he reaches the borough boundary, because he can see the dirt on the streets?
    Mr. King: I note that the services will now be provided at a saving of some £7·5 million, over the contract period, to the ratepayers of Wandsworth. I know that there are some attempts to spread propaganda about inadequacies of the service. However, I know that there were a substantial number of complaints about the service beforehand. Many people have told me that the service has improved substantially.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the enormous savings that can be made in this way are brought to the notice not only of local councils in England and Wales but to the electors of those councils before the forthcoming elections?
    Mr. King: At the next local council elections the Conservative council in Birmingham, for example, will be offering a rate reduction of 12·5 per cent. That has been brought about partly by the workmen that it employs, who have demonstrated that they can save £3·5 million a year when refuse collection is put out to competition. That saving is being transmitted direct to the ratepayers.
    Mr. Canavan: Garbage.
    Mr. Graham: Although I acknowledge that the public versus private contractor argument is of great concern and interest, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that some private contracts have been terminated because of a failure to meet promises about services? Will the Secretary of State monitor that aspect of the issue and especially bear in mind the public interest when councils will have got rid of equipment and, therefore, be at the mercy of private contractors?
    Mr. King: That is a most interesting question. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman favours putting services out to tender. I hope that he does. There can be no justification for not assessing whether services are being provided in the most efficient way. The quality of the service and the need to provide it at a proper standard is an important ingredient in a contract.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that statutory expenditure on emergency planning and on the raising and training of civil defence volunteers by county councils and the Greater London council as required under the proposed new civil defence regulations shall not be included in any penalty calculations in respect of overspending by counties and the Greater London council.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Local authorities' expenditure for comparison with their expenditure targets is calculated net of specific grants. I have had no representations which suggest that authorities' civil defence expenditure, net of specific grant, will lead to overspending.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that the primary duty of local authorities should be to ensure that they have sufficient resources to deal with emergencies, including civil defence emergencies? Therefore, should we not encourage local authorities in every way to use this money?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is an important matter, in which the local communities would wish local authorities to be involved. He will realise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the way in which local authorities discharge their duties in this respect.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that there is no conceivable way in which local authorities could cope with the emergency that would arise from a nuclear war? Indeed, the dying would envy the dead after a nuclear war. Is it not true that, because local authorities are exercising their democratic right to opt out of the deployment of nuclear weapons, the Government are now trying to force local government employees to accept the Government's diktat?
    Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been consulting local authority associations about the
    856
    way in which they should discharge their commitment to ensure that their civil defence obligations are fully met. That must be an objective of local authorities, as, I trust, it is of all hon. Members.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the country's population will benefit from the need to have an adequate civil defence provision? Will he do his best to correct some local authorities' reluctance to incur the 25 per cent. expenditure that is left to be borne by the rates?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important that local authorities should be encouraged to carry out such tasks. However, I must remind the House that substantial grants are available to ease the discharge of their duties.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the Minister remind hon. Members how many lives were saved during the second world war by our civil defence services?
    Mr. Shaw: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's question, and he is right to remind us how important that was.

    Local Authority Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held with local authority associations about capital spending in 1983–84; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. King: After consulting the local authority associations I announced on 15 March, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright), that during 1983–84 authorities are free to use up to 100 per cent. of accumulated non-housing receipts. I am also issuing additional allocations to some authorities facing particular problems in the coming year. This should enable local government to proceed with its capital spending plans in 1983–84.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are no obstacles to local authorities spending in full their capital allocations and planning with confidence for the year ahead?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will know that we have paid special attention to this matter, because we accept that part of the reason for the underspend in the current year has been the problem of the annual system of cash control. We are trying to tackle that problem and to help local authorities.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why do not the Government increase their capital spending on problems relating to coastal pollution? Has the Secretary of State seen the "golden list" produced by the Coastal Anti-Pollution League, which deals with Britain's filthy beaches? Will he read that report and make a statement to the House about the measures that he intends to introduce and the additional money that he will bring before Parliament to deal with the problems outlined in that report?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the responsibilities of health authorities, not local authorities, which are the subject of this question. We are trying to tackle this problem.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total number of tenants of local authorities, new towns and housing associations who have become owner-occupiers under the right-to-buy provisions since the Government came to office.
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council house sales have been completed since May 1979.
    Mr. Stanley: Since the Government were elected, the number of publicly rented dwellings that are now owner-occupied is approximately 500,000. About 300,000 of these sales have been through the right to buy rather than through voluntary arrangements.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the encouraging figures that he has just announced demonstrate the real transfer of wealth from the state to working people? Does he agree that perhaps two out of every three tenants who have so far exercised their right to buy are paying £20 a month more on their mortgage than they might because of the dramatic reduction in inflation and the low interest rates charged by building societies? Should they not be encouraged to transfer their mortgages to the building societies?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right to point out that this is the most important redistribution of wealth in favour of ordinary working people that has been carried out by any Government. I agree that it is part of our policy to encourage local authorities to exercise their powers voluntarily to transfer mortgages to building societies and to give their tenants the benefit of any lower rates.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that throughout London the Government's wrecking policies have produced an ever more acute shortage of homes to rent?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have had one of the largest upsurges in private house building, and there is also a substantial rise in public sector house building in London. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the number of vacant dwellings, he will find that the biggest concentration regionally is in London, where many Labour-controlled authorities have empty dwellings that have been vacant for more than a year.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the great problems in giving this right to tenants has been the disgraceful delay by many Labour-controlled councils in selling those houses? Will he confirm that one of the worst offenders has been Wolverhampton district council and that he is continuing to put all proper pressure upon that council to speed up the process of selling to tenants?
    Mr. Stanley: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. There has been considerable delay by Wolverhampton district council, Darlington district council and other Labour-controlled authorities, where progress should have been greater. The progress in Wolverhampton has not been satisfactory and is still being closely scrutinised by my right hon. Friend and myself.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Given the Government's sales policy and their abysmal record on new building, how many fewer council houses are there in Britain today than when the Government came to office?
    Mr. Stanley: There are more council houses. All that has happened is that many council tenants who would have remained so have the benefit of home ownership, thanks to this Government's policies.

    Inner Cities (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he has had with representatives of the ethnic minorities to discuss inner city problems; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): My right hon. Friend has had no such meetings recently, but, in accordance with my special responsibility for these matters within the Department of the Environment, I regularly meet representatives of ethnic minority groups to discuss subjects for which the Department is responsible, including inner city problems.
    Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that has been poured by his Department into inner city areas is a waste of money, as it was in the United States of America? Would not those resources be better utilised by transferring them to the Home Office for the better protection and policing of Greater London, so that black and white alike can be better protected?
    Sir George Young: I do not agree with that for one moment. There has been a welcome improvement in the atmosphere in our inner cities since the publication of the Scarman report and following the activities of several Government Departments, including the Home Office and mine, in building up a better dialogue in our inner cities and in backing a range of worthwhile projects with both public and private money. I cannot agree that a transfer of funds from the urban programme to the Home Office would tackle some of the deep social and economic problems that remain in our inner cities.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that the mischief-making of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) does nothing for race relations, and that the money spent in this direction and any money that can be spent in improving racial harmony is money well spent, for the benefit of the entire community?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) is entitled to his views on this matter.
    Mr. Flannery: He is not.
    Sir George Young: Any funds invested in the inner cities by my Department are scrutinised carefully. We try to back worthwhile projects that will reach the heart of the problems, but some local authorities tend to waste ratepayers' money on propaganda exercises that often raise the temperature rather than lower it.
    Mr. John Grant: Does the Minister recognise that, while I accept what he said about the unwelcome propaganda exercises, we welcome his efforts in respect of the ethnic minorities in inner cities? We hope that they will be increased and that he will resist the obnoxious and racist comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).
    Sir George Young: On Monday I approved next year's partnership programme for Islington, which contains

    859
    several new projects put forward by ethnic groups. I am confident that they will provide valuable services to the community.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend realise that in the inner cities one success story of his Department has been the general improvement in the housing action areas, which applies to all colours and creeds and is the way in which housing should be approached?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right, but the question referred to ethnic minorities, which is why I couched my reply in those terms.

    Rates
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received supporting the domestic rating system.
    Mr. King: Of the 1,125 responses to the Green Paper, 493 were broadly in favour of retaining domestic rates in some form.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government's intention to reform, or better still to abolish, the domestic rating system? Is he aware that there is no acceptable alternative to reform or abolition?
    Mr. King: As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is under close consideration. I can go no further than the answers that I have already given to the House on this matter.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: What does the Minister mean by "close consideration"? Does he not realise that this commitment was given in 1974 and continued in 1979? After four years of a Conservative Government we have seen no proposal to fulfil that commitment.
    Mr. King: I mean exactly what I said.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Britain expect the Government to take action on reforming the domestic rating system? If unanimity cannot be found on any of the options outlined in the Green Paper, does my right hon. Friend agree that an interim measure is required very soon?
    Mr. King: I am well aware of the interest and expectation over this matter. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be bringing forward proposals on this matter.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Why does not the Secretary of State implement the Layfield report recommendations published in 1976, which would overcome all the problems and get on with the job of putting local income tax in place of rates?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know always tries to be helpful in these matters.

    Home Improvement Grants
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the extension of grants for rewiring older property.
    Sir George Young: I have recently received representations from hon. Members, local authorities and members of the public about the extension of home improvement grants for rewiring older property.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend consider allowing a separate grant for rewiring, so that many people, particularly the elderly, can live in comfort and safety?
    Sir George Young: Where an improved electrical installation is required to meet the approved standard, such work is eligible on its own for an improvement grant at the local authority's discretion. In other circumstances, rewiring may be grant-aided as a repair associated with improvement works with either an improvement or intermediate grant. We have no plans at the moment to change this arrangement.

    Water Meters
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the provision of meters to private householders by water authorities.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: This is primarily a matter for the water authorities, but the Government have supported their initiatives to make optional metering available to all their consumers.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister consider advising water authorities to investigate any demands for meters by householders with rateable values under £350 per annum, who could not possibly benefit thereby?
    Mr. Shaw: Yes, I agree. In discussions as to whether a meter is appropriate, the rateable value and the benefits from the meter should be estimated.

    Multi-storey Flats
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on behalf of tenants living in damp and cold multi-storey flats; and if he will assist councils to renovate such properties.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend has received various representations from time to time on behalf of tenants in dwellings with cold and dampness problems, although these have not been limited to multi-storey properties.
    It is for local authorities to decide what resources to devote to tackling these problems within the total available to them for housing investment. In making allocations account is taken of any special local need. Homes insulation grants are available for local authority tenants who apply for them.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister accept that there are now 4·2 million families living in homes that are unfit or lack a bath, hot water and an inside lavatory, or which need major repairs costing over £2,500? As the cost of these repairs and renovations will run into billions of pounds, which is far beyond local authorities' means, will he consider making an additional grant for this purpose, which would also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed building workers?
    Sir George Young: It was not clear whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to public or private sector dwellings. As my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, we have increased by 15 per cent. the resources available to local authorities next year for public sector dwellings. Unfortunately, they have not spent all the available

    861
    resources this year. It is therefore difficult for the hon. Gentleman to sustain the argument that it is a shortage of resources that is holding up such matters.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that one of the major causes of condensation and dampness in council property is that a great many council tenants cannot any longer afford to have adequate heating in their homes? When will the Government tackle that problem?
    Sir George Young: The Building Research Establishment is now researching the causes and mehods of relieving dampness. It is carrying out some practical field trials to assess the effectiveness in practice and the cost of improved heating, thermal insulation, ventilation and the role of dehumidifiers. Resources are available in particular cases to help certain families with heating costs.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the worst problems are found in the prefabricated multi-storey flats of the past? Does he agree that the race by Governments to provide accommodation resulted in incredibly had architectural design and lack of insulation and heating facilities? There must be a long programme of renovation. It cannot be achieved in the short term.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. The country is paying a heavy penalty for decisions that were made a decade or two ago about the design of some buildings. We have tried to change the subsidy system so that capitalised repairs to tackle such problems are eligible for subsidy.
    Mr. Freeson: Returning to the question of encouraging better heating for elderly people in these badly insulated homes, will the Minister look at the Homes Insulation Act 1978 again and use the powers that the Act gives his Department to introduce a further scheme beyond the loft insulation scheme?
    Sir George Young: We have this matter under review. Our present view is that resources should be concentrated on loft insulation, where the most effective savings in heat loss can be made. We are looking at possible means of extensions, such as double glazing and other methods.

    Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce proposals to amend the system of charging for water supply and sewage disposal.
    Mr. King: I have no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the constipated elderly widow in my constituency—whose other disabilities prevent her from having a regular bath—that life is somewhat unfair, as the six adults who live next door, who are fitness and health fanatics, use rather more water and generate rather more sewage than she does, but are charged the same water rates? Will he say when the Government intend to do something about this? If not now, will something be brought in before the general election?
    Mr. King: We have taken a close interest in this matter, as my hon. Friend knows. From 1 April every water supply authority, whether a water company or authority, will offer optional domestic metering. The substantial number of new meters that have been installed will, I hope, he further expanded. People such as my hon.
    862
    Friend's constituent will be much better placed if they consider that option, which could show significant savings.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many elderly people who find it extremely difficult to pay their water rates, which have increased out of all proportion during the past three years? Will he consider introducing rebates for water rates?
    Mr. King: No, I do not believe that that would be the appropriate way to tackle this matter.
    Mr. Ashton: Why not?
    Mr. King: For the same reasons as the previous Government reached the same conclusions. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) says that water rates have increased out of all proportion, I know that his constituents in the Southern water authority area will be pleased to know that this year's increase will be 4·6 per cent.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister recall that at the 1979 election the Conservatives were going to change many things and said that because a previous Government did not carry out something that did not bind them to retain an existing system? The Conservatives were going to change the rating system. Surely it is only fair that rebates should be available for water rates. Is not the Government's vicious indifference towards this matter shown by the fact that they are proposing to replace existing water authorities with nominees from the Department of the Environment who will not consider proper charging if they are instructed not to do so by his Department?
    Mr. King: Those are two different issues. As far as I know, as a point of principle, the hon. Gentleman never raised the subject of the rebate when his party was in power —[HON. MEMBERS: "He did".] If he did, he was not successful. The issue is whether such a rebate is more a matter for the normal DHSS machinery than something provided through the water authority. While rebates are important, so is the general level of water charges. Continuing pressure to try to achieve greater economy and efficiency in water authorities is resulting directly in lower water increases this year.

    Industrialised House Building Systems
    Mr. Joseph Deanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any further submissions made to him for financial assistance from local authorities, relating to the problems they are now encountering concerning the defects appearing in housing accommodation built by industrialised and semi-industrialised systems.
    Mr. Stanley: Since the answer that the hon. Member received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 19 May last year, I have received submissions for financial assistance from a number of individual authorities, including the members of the Yorkshire development group, and also from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
    Mr. Dean: Is the Minister aware that the answers given today on the same subject mean that there will be little or no increased help to local authorities, other than by giving

    863
    them permission to raise their rates further to carry the burden of these repairs? When will he extend the help that he has given to people who bought Airey houses from local authorities to people who have bought other industrialised system houses from local authorities, and to local authorities that are dealing with industrial houses on their tenants' behalf?
    Mr. Stanley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman says that no additional assistance is available. He must
    864
    know that Leeds has taken advantage of our invitation to apply for additional allocations this year. It has received an additional allocation of up to £9 million for capitalised repairs. It has certainly taken advantage of our offer.
    I am considering representations by the AMA and the other local authority associations on the HIP allocation method for the next financial year, 1984–85. I want to consider whether any special arrangement should be made in the methodology to deal with the problems of defective housing.

Northern Ireland (Economic Initiative)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the Government's new economic initiative for Northern Ireland.
The House will need no reminding of the unique combination of severe economic and social problems in Northern Ireland. In recognition of those exceptional circumstances, the Government have decided to introduce several new measures to stimulate industrial growth and to assist viable industrial employment in Northern Ireland.
First and foremost, the Government have decided to introduce a new grant that will reimburse new and expanding industries up to 80 per cent. of the corporation tax paid on profits generated by approved projects. That grant will form part of the selective financial assistance packages administered by the industrial development board and by the local enterprise development unit.
A measure of that sort has been widely urged upon us by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, by the Northern Ireland assembly—which yesterday endorsed a constructive report on industrial incentives—by the industrial development board and by many others. It will be a major new attraction to potential investors.
Secondly, and again in recognition of Northern Ireland's unique economic problems, the existing 75 per cent. derating of industrial premises will be increased to a full 100 per cent. That will both help new investors and bring valuable immediate relief to existing enterprises. Parliament will shortly be asked to approve an order giving effect to that derating from the beginning of the next financial year.
Thirdly, an energy conservation scheme will be introduced to encourage industry to increase efficiency and competitiveness. Grants at the rate of 30 per cent. will be offered on a selective basis towards the cost of approved energy conservation projects.
Finally, the Government intend to introduce two further schemes designed to improve competitive strength and efficiency. There will be a management incentives scheme, which will provide grant aid in appropriate cases to companies to help them recruit good-quality management, and an advisory service to industry will be established to help Northern Ireland companies to improve their production methods and processes.
Those measures reflect the advice the Government have received, especially from the industrial development board. I am confident that they will assist the board in its vital task of helping to conserve and create employment. A vital contribution is also being made by the local enterprise development unit, whose new plan for the creation and development of small businesses I approved last year.
Those specific Northern Ireland measures will reinforce the Government's more general steps to assist industry and the economy. Reducing interest rates and the successive reductions in national insurance surcharge will have as valuable an impact in Northern Ireland as in the remainder of the country.
During the last few years the Government have accorded first priority to programmes designed to assist industry in Northern Ireland. As we have shown in these allocations, and further demonstrated with the measures
866
announced today, the Government will play their part in supporting and promoting the economy of the Province. But a heavy responsibility lies on the people themselves, on their industrial, commercial and labour leaders, and on their public representatives, to bring home just how exaggerated and distorted is the impression which so many outsiders have of the Province. We look to them to demonstrate to the industrialists of the world that Northern Ireland is worthy of their confidence and their investment.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland stands at almost 21 per cent.? Therefore, the initiatives—albeit minor—are obviously welcome. Indeed, they are long overdue. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the one thing of which I could never accuse the Government is shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted? The Government burned down the stable many months ago in Northern Ireland.
Is not the first half of the last paragraph of the right hon. Gentleman's statement an insult to the people of Northern Ireland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Government Monetarist policies are mainly to blame—not the people of Northern Ireland? The Opposition took action when unemployment stood at 10 per cent. in Northern Ireland, which I found highly unacceptable. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at that time there were more people employed in Northern Ireland than ever before?
Have not the Opposition been calling for urgent action on the economy for many months—as have the trade unions in Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Northern Ireland has become a country of ghost towns? In Carrickfergus and Strabane unemployment stands at more than 50 per cent. Are not those towns tragic examples?
The Opposition hope that the measures announced will do something to arrest the decline of the economy of Northern Ireland and bring hope to a population afflicted by the twin evils of unemployment and poverty. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much more will be required if the economy is ever to recover fully?
In the short term, could not a great deal more be done to boost the construction industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about energy conservation? Grants of 30 per cent. will be offered on a selective basis to approved energy conservation projects. How does he envisage an expanding coal market in Northern Ireland, and how will that benefit from the proposed measures?
Will not those who benefit most from the measures be not the people of Northern Ireland—or of Ireland as a whole—but the entrepreneurs who, as I have found, have played the North against the South in the search for higher grants and greater incentives? Do not the Government now realise that the competition between the two halves of Ireland for inward investment benefits neither? A job created in the South is a job opportunity lost in the North, and vice versa. Do the Government agree that economic co-operation between the North and the South is common sense?
Would not a joint working party established by the Northern Ireland industrial development board and the Republic's industrial development agency help to ensure that a job created in Ireland was a job for Ireland? I urge the Government to follow those steps and examine the possibilities for greater co-operation with Dublin. Do the

867
Government appreciate that never were jobs more vital to any part of this country or Ireland than they are in Northern Ireland—not only for the jobs themselves, but for the political atmosphere?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is 13 per cent. unemployment in my area? I thought that I would never see that day in my lifetime again. However, it must be viewed in the Northern Ireland context of towns with more than 50 per cent. unemployed. I cannot jib at these extras for Northern Ireland, but I wish that four years ago the Government had carried on the policies of the Labour Administration. If they had, Carrickfergus and Strabane would not have found themselves in the mess that they are in today.
Mr. Prior: I thought that that was rather grudging support from the right hon. Gentleman. Had we continued with the Labour policies, Carrickfergus would have suffered exactly the same problems. The House may wish to be reminded that the percentage of unemployed doubled while the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for Northern Ireland, and was increasing at the end of his period of office.
Simply pouring money into rather dubious projects will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about the energy conservation projects. I am placing fuller details of those schemes in the Library. They are designed to help industry to conserve energy in an area in which energy costs are at the top of the scale compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am all in favour of economic co-operation with the South, but one of the purposes of the package is to make it clear to industrialists in Great Britain that there are ample opportunities and advantages in investing in the North of Ireland as opposed to the South, where there has been greater investment from Great Britain in the past few years.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: With reference to the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and to the injudicious remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no economic initiative will be of lasting value in Northern Ireland unless the Government desist from the series of political initiatives that have occupied the lifetime of this Parliament, which are in contravention of the election undertakings of the Conservative party, and of which the consequence is all too clearly seen by the people in Northern Ireland to be the opposite of that which they intended?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has done well to avoid the trap of a variation in tax levels between one part of the United Kingdom and another and to seek to achieve his purpose by means of a grant rather than by variation in tax? Furthermore, is he aware that the total industrial derating will assuage the grievance that was felt by firms which were on the boundary of the new enterprise zone but not within it?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful for the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, but in relation to the first part of his question I urge him, as a man who could have considerable influence in Northern Ireland, to use his influence more constructively than he has done in recent
868
years. The right hon. Gentleman's views are not on the whole supported by the people of Northern Ireland and his continued expression of them does no good either to Northern Ireland or to his reputation.
Mr. John Page: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) were 50 per cent. De Lorean and 50 per cent. Mitterrand, and that that mixture is a cocktail for disaster? Would my right hon. Friend also accept that the measures that he has outlined today should be successful, if the security situation improves?
Mr. Prior: Clearly, the political and security situation has been one very important reason for the lack of industrial inward investment over the past few years, but I believe that there are, and have been, great advantages in inward investment in Northern Ireland, particularly in view of the very good industrial relations there and the excellent productivity of Northern Ireland workers. I therefore hope that these measures will have a major impact.
Mr. Stephen Ross: This is a generous package which is worthy of a positive response. I echo the right hon. Gentleman's call to local leaders in industry and politics in Northern Ireland to take the initiative. It would be a good idea to give greater emphasis to the creation of worker co-operatives in the areas of highest unemployment, such as those referred to by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). What is the likely response, and what is the estimated cost of the measures?
Mr. Prior: The estimated cost of the two measures —the energy conservation scheme and the 100 per cent. industrial derating—is about £9 million to £10 million. It is impossible to say what the cost of the corporation tax relief grant will be, but it will certainly not cost very much in the early years and it is specifically related to increased employment. A company that wished to take advantage of it would have to show not only that it was increasing employment but that it was engaged in an arm's-length operation, away from any of its other operations in Great Britain or other parts of the world.
We would support the creation of local co-operatives, and they could be supported through the local enterprise development unit. I have no political hangups about giving support to co-operatives, if they come forward.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Secretary of State said that he was all for economic cooperation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If I cannot read my notes of the statement, how can I make my points to the Secretary of State? Does the Secretary of State agree that the incentives for new projects and the advisory service to industry could only benefit from co-operation with the Dublin Government, who have had such demonstrable success in respect of the former and far more success than we have had in this country? Has the right hon. Gentleman also assessed the employment impact of his measures in the areas of highest unemployment?
Mr. Prior: No, it is impossible to assess the employment contribution that the measures will make, but it will be considerable. I accept the point about competition between North and South. One of the reasons why we have introduced the measures is to bring company

869
taxation far more into line with what is on offer for inward investment in the Republic of Ireland without damaging the integrity of the United Kingdom tax system.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the constructive package announced by my right hon. Friend, especially the energy assistance and the industrial derating. Will he assure the House that never again will large sums of taxpayers' money be given to companies, especially those with proprietors from overseas, without adequate security for the taxpayer? In that connection, does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) were ill judged, bearing in mind that the British taxpayer lost a huge amount of money as a result of the Labour Government jumping into bed with a man who could not be trusted and should never have been trusted?
Mr. Prior: I generally find the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) well judged, but I thought that they were ill judged today. One of the advantages of the corporation tax relief grant is that a company must be making profits before it can take advantage of it. That is entirely in tune with our philosophy and may avoid some of the problems experienced in past years through supporting companies of rather dubious profitability. I hope that a combination of the new industrial development board and the work done by the assembly will ensure that money spent in Northern Ireland is spent to good effect.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: The Secretary of State referred to great opportunities being created for inward investment by the private sector. Is he aware that there are great opportunities for inward investment by the Government? Does he agree that the biggest single economic generator is the construction industry and that the way to get things moving in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is through a massive injection of investment into the construction industry, beginning with a major housing programme to include construction of new houses and improvement and rehabilitation of older houses? What steps are proposed to achieve that?
Mr. Prior: I do not know when the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) was last in Northern Ireland. There is a massive housing campaign now with about £400 million for new and improved housing. That is far more than in any other part of the United Kingdom, so we are giving a great deal of help to the construction industry in Northern Ireland.
Nevertheless, simply pouring in more and more Government money will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. It already receives a far higher proportion of aid—between £1,000 million and £1,200 million—than any part of the United Kingdom. The proportion of gross domestic product supplied, as it were, by the Government is far greater than elsewhere. Northern Ireland now requires the development of good, sound manufacturing investment which can support a highly skilled work force and is privately oriented and not dependent on Government support.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Although one welcomes the proposals, will the Secretary of State
870
explain why they were not introduced at least two years ago? How do the proposals compare with the equivalent incentives provided in the Republic?
Mr. Prior: It is always possible to argue that these measures should have been introduced in the past but the fact is that they are being introduced now. I believe that they will be generally welcomed. They follow very much the advice that has been given to us by the new industrial development board which has been set up for only about six months. These measures, taken with the other measures which are available to assist industry in Northern Ireland, now make Northern Ireland the most attractive place for investment in the whole community and possibly in the whole of the Western world.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the undoubted influence that he now has in the Treasury? I take it that a certain amount of dampness is creeping in there at this late stage. Having expressed pleasure for what has been done for Northern Ireland, may I ask him to use his influence on behalf of many places on the mainland where we could do with some derating of industry because industry has been caned by some of the high rates on this side of the water?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said but even he will accept that, great though the demands may be on this side of the water, the problems of Northern Ireland are unique and have to be treated in a unique manner.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the right hon. Gentleman will know that, with regard to profits, accountants are very good at producing anything one wants. What action will be taken to ensure that the initiative is properly monitored and that we do not have more De Loreals? Will the House check it from day to day? Will the Government require Northern Ireland Members to check it or will they leave it to people in the Northern Ireland Office who appear not to do their job properly and allow such things to go on?
Mr. Prior: It is De Lorean, not L'Oreal, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is a cosmetics firm.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: So was De Lorean —cosmetic.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is on to a perfectly serious and important point. It is important that checking should be adequate to ensure that there is no room for abuse. We shall have to draw up tight arrangements. They must not be so tight as to put people off using them, but the hon. Gentleman is on to a serious point. I have already consulted the Inland Revenue, and we will be setting up a special monitoring organisation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions until 4 pm, when I shall call Front Bench spokesmen, but whether everyone is called will depend on the length of questions.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: When there are such difficulties and when such efforts are being made by my right hon. Friend, the IDB and private enterprise,

871
might one not expect the British Broadcasting Corporation to have shown itself, if not helpful, at least objective in its "Panorama" programme insultingly called "Britain's Wasteland"? Has my right hon. Friend had any conversation with the governors of the BBC about the programme, which was so unbalanced and distorted and dwelt so much on the negative and not on the positive?
Mr. Prior: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. I am taking an early opportunity to talk to the BBC about it.
Mr. Robert Parry: what discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and when does he expect next to meet the committee? Does he not agree that any economic proposals must be discussed with and supported by the committee? As the Member responsible for the Transport and General Workers Union membership in Northern Ireland, I fully support the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) concerning a massive programme of reconstruction in the building industry.
Mr. Prior: I shall be seeing the committee early next week.
Mr. Bob Cryer: But would not the Secretary of State accept that the Government's initiative amounts to intervening in the market place and that market forces are not providing jobs in Northern Ireland? Perhaps he could draw it to the attention of the Secretaries of State for Industry and Employment that market forces are not working in the rest of the United Kingdom either.
Will he spell out what type of projects will receive the 80 per cent. corporation tax allowance? Will they include those projects which already receive 100 per cent. corporation tax allowance plus grant aid? What sort of grant aid is to be given to recruit managers? Should this not be carefully scrutinised? The Opposition wish to see jobs created everywhere, but we do not wish to see money given needlessly. Would not Mr. De Lorean have qualified for grant aid to recruit managers?
Mr. Prior: Mr. De Lorean certainly would not have qualified for aid for making profits. To that extent, this corporation tax relief grant is specially designed to encourage profitable companies, and not the reverse. As for the aid for managers, it has proved difficult in a Northern Ireland context to attract managers of the right quality. We believe that we can help individual companies, as part of a package of aid, to subsidise certain managerial posts to attract them to Northern Ireland. Anything that we can do to make Northern Ireland more attractive will be of aid to industry there.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment anywhere is a recipe for disaster? As the Government can govern neither their own country nor Northern Ireland, is he prepared to propose to the Northern Ireland people that they take over the autonomous government of their own country, or to ask all of the people of Ireland whether they are prepared to take over their own country and run the economy of Ireland as one country?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In what sense are the "severe economic and social problems", which the right hon. Gentleman described as being of an exceptional nature, any worse than those in other parts of the United Kingdom such as the northern region, where unemployment is higher?
Mr. Prior: There may be pockets of unemployment in Great Britain which are as high as the average in Northern Ireland, but there are pockets in Northern Ireland which are considerably higher than anywhere else. They are also accompanied by a degree of violence, which, thank heavens, is not present in Great Britain. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions in Northern Ireland which should make the House sympathetic to the special treatment that we are seeking to accord.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How has this post-Livingstone initiative managed to get past the Milton Friedman litmus test that is operated by the Government? If there is sufficient money available, will the Government bear it in mind that it would be a good idea to get hold of that bloke MacGregor and send him across to Northern Ireland to run the scheme?
Mr. Prior: On the latter point, I can only say that I was extremely grateful to Mr. MacGregor for placing an order with Harland and Wolff for a large ship for the British Steel Corporation. I should like very much for him to come back to Northern Ireland to place a few more orders. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not know a good man when he sees one, I do.
Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that I said that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland under the Labour Government was unacceptable? At the same time, if the Secretary of State has not been advised, he should be advised that there were more people in Northern Ireland at work during that period than ever before. It was found that with the hope of the Government trying to do something to provide jobs, more people were registering for work than ever before. I am sometimes amazed by the stance of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who says one thing in this House but whose actions back in his constituency are exactly the opposite. I never found that he complained about public money going into his constituency to create jobs for his people. If the Opposition can be pilloried for anything, it is that they paid money for people to work and not for people to languish in the dole queue and for unemployment benefits. Will the Secretary of State answer the main question? What type of jobs and how many jobs will the package attract to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Prior: I cannot answer that question because I simply do not know the answer. The result will depend entirely on inward investment. I do not know what attitude others will take to inward investment but I suspect that the absence of local taxes and the equivalent of 10 per cent. corporation tax for companies making a profit will be pretty attractive to incoming investment. To that extent, I believe that the scheme will have a marked effect on unemployment levels. Much will depend on the attitude of employers, inward investors and the people of Northern Ireland themselves. I am satisfied that the people of Northern Ireland deserve this break and I think that they will take full advantage of it.

Nicaragua
4.1 pm
Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the reference to the United Nations Security Council by the Government of Nicaragua of the threat to the security of that country and to peace in central America posed by armed insurgents based in Honduras."
The matter is specific and important because warnings have been issued by the Government of Nicaragua over the past few days that war with Honduras may be imminent as a result of the penetration of Nicaragua by many hundreds of heavily armed counter-revolutionaries, many of whom appear to be former Somoza national guardsmen based in Honduras and armed and trained, so it is alleged, by the United States and Honduras.
Some confirmation of the position has been provided by the counter-revolutionary Nicaraguan Democratic Front, which has claimed that a number of towns in the Matagalpa region have fallen to it, although these claims are dismissed by the Nicaraguan Government. The counter-revolutionaries have called for the deposing of the Nicaraguan Government and recognition by "friendly Governments".
The matter is urgent because, unless defused, the situation could escalate to war between Honduras and Nicaragua and could well engulf large parts of central America. It is urgent, moreover, because, since the Nicaraguan Government have referred the matter to the United Nations Security Council, Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the Security Council, will have to make significant decisions, either in support of or in opposition to the case presented by Nicaragua. This will have to be done within a matter of days.
Having regard to the heavily prejudiced stance already taken by the Government against Nicaragua, it is vital that
874
the House be given the opportunity to hear from the Government so as to determine whether they are making an independent judgment of these matters or are prepared to act as a timid acolyte of the United States Secondly, it is vital that the House should express its point of view on a matter of such moment and, above all, well in advance of the Security Council's debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the reference to the United Nations Security Council by the Government of Nicaragua of the threat to the security of that country and to peace in central America posed by armed insurgents based in Honduras."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 1 am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's representations but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  PUBLIC OPINION POLLS (PROHIBITION AT ELECTION TIMES)
  Mr. Doug Hoyle, supported by Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Frank R. White, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Robert Parry and Mr. Ron Brown presented a Bill to prohibit the holding of and publication of the results of opinion polls about voting intentions at times prior to general elections and by-elections for the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

Insolvency (Special Arrangements)
4.5 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to insolvency.
We are all painfully aware of the world recession. Businesses have weathered some difficult trading conditions and a number of them have perished. We may disagree about what the Government can do about a recession or unemployment, but I think that every hon. Member will agree that a Government have a part to play in creating the economic environment to encourage sound businesses and the maintenance of jobs where they can.
There is no doubt that a number of businesses are foundering and have foundered under our insolvency laws and procedures. English insolvency law is out of date and our procedures are unnecessarily out of date, cumbersome and bureaucratic. The creditors' rules are unfair. Once a company becomes ensnared in court proceedings, like a fly in a spider's web it can never get out, even if the business is fundamentally sound. The same applies to bankruptcies of individuals. I believe that the law needs tightening to deal with rogues.
There is a need, which the previous Labour Government recognised and which I believe the present Government recognise, for a new, comprehensive insolvency system. A committee under Sir Kenneth Cork was appointed in 1977 to examine just that. It produced part 1 of its report in April 1981 and part 2 in February 1982. The report contains a detailed system to deal with and reform the insolvency law. It is the product of the best working experience. It is innovative, well argued, radical and of immense authority. The report has been welcomed on both sides of the House.
In seeking leave for the Bill to be introduced, I have the support of hon. Members from both sides of the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who cannot be present today, welcomes the report. However, the Government have taken no action on
876
it. Meanwhile, out-of-date and cumbersome legal procedures trundle on and individuals and companies whose financial position is facing short-term difficulties but which could survive are being brought down by out-of-date procedures and unfair rules. Jobs are being lost unnecessarily.
I should like to see the Cork report enacted as a whole but I believe that Department officials are dragging their feet. They should start work now. Legislative time will be available more or less however we compute the date of the next general election. I believe that any new Government would want to continue any unfinished work commenced by this Government. If that cannot happen, and if to do that would block the usual channels, there are some urgent matters that can be taken from the report and dealt with now.
I have the support of Members on both sides of the House for the Bill, in which I seek to do three things. First, the Bill requires registration by receivers and liquidators of the cause of the failure. Secondly, it seeks to tackle the roguery that is involved in consecutive and collusive insolvencies and to tighten up the rules to deal with delinquent directors. Thirdly, it seeks to provide a system of voluntary arrangements to enable debtors to agree arrangements with creditors under which the business can continue.
This is not an esoteric matter that concerns only lawyers. The present insolvency rules are unfair and are costing jobs. The matter concerns us all and is urgent.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. David Watkins and Mr. Kenneth Weetch.

Insolvency (Special Arrangements)
  INSOLVENCY (SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to insolvency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Housing and Building Control Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the report [7 March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
Report considered accordingly
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to
Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That on the allotted day which under the Order [16 February] is to be given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading those proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion as follows:—

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

New Clauses and amendments to Clause 1

5.30 pm

Amendments to Clauses 2 to 11

8 pm

Amendments to Clauses 12 to 23

10 pm

Remaining proceedings on Consideration

11 pm

Third Reading

1 am

Orders of the Day
  Housing and Building Control Bill
    Allotted Day
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Allotted Day
      New Clause 1

        NOTICES
        `After subsection (1) of section 22 of the 1980 Act (notices) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(1A) Where the form of and the particulars, to be contained in a notice under this Chapter are so prescribed, a tenant who proposes to claim or has claimed to exercise the right to buy may request the landlord to supply him with a form for use in giving such a notice, and the landlord shall do so within seven days of the request.".'.—[Mr. Stanley.] Brought up, and read the First time
        4.11 pm
        The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        This clause provides that a landlord must supply any form which has been statutorily prescribed for tenants' use in connection with their right-to-buy within seven days of receiving a request from a tenant for such a form. We are concerned in particular that landlords should be under an obligation to supply the initial right to buy claim form, the RTB1. No express provision was included in the Housing Act 1980 to require landlords to meet requests from their tenants for these forms.
        We assumed, not unreasonably I think, that no local authority would be so irresponsible or so petty as to refuse its own tenants a statutorily prescribed form under legislation passed by Parliament. Unhappily, we overestimated the sense of public responsibility of two Labour-controlled authorities, the city council of Leeds and the council at Thamesdown, both of which have consistently refused to provide their tenants with the right-to-buy application forms, referring all requests to the Department. The Department has so far issued over 8,000 forms to Leeds tenants and over 16,000 to tenants in Thamesdown. I can see no justification whatsoever for the stance that those two authorities have adopted. Their refusal to supply the statutory forms has simply served to cause delay, frustration and inconvenience to individual tenants who want to exercise their statutory rights.
        The new clause will place landlords under a clear legal obligation to supply their tenants with forms prescribed for their use in exercising the right to buy. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the new clause should never have been necessary. If councils such as Leeds and Thamesdown wish to conduct themselves in an obstructive and petty-minded way by refusing to hand out statutorily prescribed forms, we have no alternative but to bring forward a new clause to prevent tenants from being obstructed in obtaining their legal rights.
        Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister said that the new clause should never have been necessary. It would not have been necessary if the Government had not

        879
        insisted throughout their right-to-buy legislation that they knew better than local authorities what was appropriate with regard to council house sales in any local authority area. As the Minister has said, the new clause is a petty little amendment. It shows the House the Minister's obsession with forcing through as many council house sales as possible. The whole of the Minister's legislation has been insistent on pushing forward as quickly as possible with as many sales as possible. This is yet another example of that approach.
        The Minister gave two examples of authorities which, he said, were dragging their feet in terms of supplying forms to tenants who wanted to buy. However, he did not point out that the new clause will apply to all local authorities. They will all have to supply forms within seven days, regardless of the circumstances in which they are operating and regardless of the staffing constraints that the Tory Government have placed upon them. I wonder whether there are any other circumstances in which a local authority or even a Government Department has to operate under such a peculiar restriction that it has to send out forms within seven days.
        The Minister has not said what will happen if the request for a form is received by a local authority during a holiday period—say, wakes week, Christmas or Easter —when staff are away. He has not taken account of problems such as postal delays. He has not said whether local authorities will have sufficient money to send the forms out by first-class post or whether the seven days apply to the date on which the local authority posts the form or the date by which the tenant is supposed to receive it. I wonder, too, whether, in future, all of us will get replies to letters from this Government within seven days. Will the Government set an example?
        The Minister ought not to be bringing forward the new clause. It is a petty amendment. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it is symptomatic of the obsession of the Minister and his Department with council house sales and his assumption that he knows better than the local authorities concerned.
        4.15 pm
        Mr. Christopher Murphy: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction who has moved the new clause. He is endeavouring, as are all Members on this side of the House, to ensure that council and housing association tenants are provided with every fair opportunity to take advantage of the right to buy. It is imperative to eliminate from the Housing Act 1980, via clauses such as this, any hurdles that may be erected by Labour-controlled councils in the hope that the tenant will eventually fall short of the winning post. The stakes are indeed high—a person's home — and the prize well worth the winning —ownership—and nothing should be allowed to make the going more difficult.
        The new clause will assist the tenant who wishes to claim to exercise the right to buy by stipulating the provision of a form from the landlord to give such notice. It should provide a helpful step in the procedure, in stark contrast to doctrinaire Socialist local authorities, such as Welwyn/Hatfield, which apparently makes considerable use of completion notices as part of the technique of hindrance.
        880
        The new clause also illustrates clearly how the Government are determined to help fulfil the desire of the vast majority of council tenants to own their own homes by improving the system, and district councils such as my own should fully recognise that. To have had to involve my hon. Friend the Minister to speed up local sales and to find that under 15 per cent. of houses have been sold speaks volumes.
        It is essential that, should the clause be passed by the House, its importance in amending the Housing Act is given maximum publicity to council tenants seeking the right to buy. The need to publish the whole advantageous scheme, together will full details of the method to be adopted in purchasing council homes, is paramount in overcoming the intransigence of Labour-controlled authorities.
        I urge all hon. Members who believe it is correct to respect the hopes and aspirations of their constituents to support the Minister on the new clause. Such determination will make the right to buy one of the most successful social policy innovations of the 20th century.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 8

        THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO GIVE DIRECTIONS AS TO COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS
        `After section 24 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
        Secretary of State's power to give directions as to covenants and conditions
        24A.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that, if covenants or conditions of any kind were included in conveyances or grants of dwelling-houses of any description, the conveyances or grants would not conform with Parts I and II or, as the case may be, Parts I and III of Schedule 2 to this Act, he may direct landlords generally, landlords of a particular description or particular landlords not to include covenants or conditions of that kind in conveyances or grants of dwelling-houses of that description which are executed on or after a date specified in the direction.
        (2) A direction given under this section may be varied or withdrawn by a subsequent direction so given.
        (3) In this section and section 24B below any reference to conveyances or grants is a reference to conveyances or grants executed in pursuance of this Chapter.
        Effect of directions on existing covenants and conditions
        24B.—(1) If a direction under section 24A above so provides, the provisions of this section shall apply in relation to any covenant or condition which—

        (a) was included in a conveyance or grant executed before the date specified in the direction (in this section referred to as 'the specified date'); and

        (b) could not have been so included if the conveyance or grant had been executed on or after that date.

        (2) The covenant or condition shall be discharged or (if the direction so provides) modified, as from the specified date, to such extent or in such manner as may be provided by the direction; and the discharge or modification shall be binding on all persons entitled or capable of becoming entitled to the benefit of the covenant or condition.
        (3) The landlord by whom the conveyance or grant was executed shall within such period as may be specified in the direction—

        (a) serve on the person registered as the proprietor of the dwelling-house, and on any person registered as the proprietor of a charge affecting the dwelling-house, a written notice informing him of the discharge or modification; and

        (b) on behalf of the person registered as the proprietor of the dwelling-house, apply to the Chief Land Registrar (and pay the appropriate fee) for notice of the discharge or

        881
        modification to be entered in the register;
        and for the purposes of enabling the landlord to comply with the requirements of this subsection, the Chief Land Registrar shall (notwithstanding section 112 of the Land Registration Act 1925) allow any person authorised by the landlord to inspect and make copies of and extracts from any register or document which is in the custody of the Chief Land Registrar and relates to the dwelling-house.
        (4) Notwithstanding anything in section 64 of the Land Registration Act 1925, notice of the discharge or modification may be entered in the register without the production of any land certificate outstanding in respect of the dwelling-house, but without prejudice to the power of the Chief Land Registrar to compel production of the certificate for the purposes mentioned in that section." '.—[Mr. Stanley.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be for the convenience of the House to take new clause 9—Secretary of State's power to obtain information etc.—and Government amendments Nos. 45 to 49 and 50 and 51.
        Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        This group of amendments and clauses introduces a new power which will enable the Secretary of State to direct landlords not to include certain covenants or conditions in conveyances or leases executed in pursuance of the right to buy, if it appears to him that conveyances or leases containing such covenants or conditions would not conform with schedule 2 to the 1980 Act. The purpose of this group of amendments is not to change tenants' rights under the law as it now stands but to ensure that tenants get their legal rights in conformity with the legislation. New clause 8 introduces the new power of direction. New clause 9 and amendments Nos. 45–51 are simply consequential amendments to new clause 8 and to provisions already contained in the Bill.
        The Department has received a very considerable number of complaints from tenants hoping to exercise their right to buy but objecting to covenants or conditions of sale proposed by their landlords. These have included a number of covenants and conditions which are in our view clearly unreasonable in a lease or conveyance under the right to buy and contrary to the entitlement that tenants have under paragraph 5 of schedule 2 to reasonable terms. Some landlords have sought to impose conditions on tenant purchasers under the right to buy which, for instance, would put them in a worse position as home owners than if they had remained tenants with their rights under the tenants' charter. For example, a council has required that houses being sold should be used only as single private dwelling-houses for the exclusive use of the purchaser and members of his family. This is far more restrictive than the tenants' charter, under which any secure tenant may, for example, take in lodgers or, with the consent of his landlord, arrange to sublet a part of his house.
        Some landlords have sought to impose positive covenants requiring the purchaser to contribute to the costs of maintaining facilities, for example a launderette and drying room, some distance from his home, which the purchaser has argued that he has never used and, indeed, was quite unaware that the facility even existed and in respect of which he is given no user rights and from which he derives no benefit other than as a member of the public.
        The 1980 Act does not give landlords an unfettered right to impose whatever covenants and conditions they
        882
        think fit. Schedule 2 to the Act sets out certain parameters within which terms and conditions of sale must fall. In particular, paragraph 5 of that schedule provides that, subject to certain provisions elsewhere in the schedule, a conveyance or grant may include such covenants and conditions as are reasonable in the circumstances. We do not believe that some of the covenants and conditions which have come to our attention, to which I have briefly referred, are reasonable in the circumstances.
        What can the right-to-buy purchaser do about that situation? If he believes that the covenants and conditions proposed by his landlord do not conform with the requirements of the legislation, he may, in theory, challenge those covenants and, if necessary, pursue his dispute with his landlord through the courts. But this is not a course which other than a tiny minority of right-to-buy purchasers would choose to pursue. Court action is an expensive and uncertain option. It is likely to delay the date of completion considerably and the complexity of the issues is in itself likely to daunt most right-to-buy purchasers, as it would daunt most people in a lay capacity as opposed to solicitors. In practice, therefore, most purchasers opt to accept the covenants and conditions proposed by their landlords, even where they believe that these offer them far less than their legal entitlement to reasonable terms.
        I do not consider this situation satisfactory. We feel that it is imperative to give tenants greater protection. A secure tenant has a right to buy his home free from unreasonable conditions and covenants. It is important to him shat he buys his home free from unreasonable conditions. He will probably, in the fullness of time, have to resell his home. If he accepts unreasonable covenants now, it could prejudice the value and the marketability of his home when he comes to sell.
        It is not right that large numbers of tenants should be faced with protracted and costly legal disputes simply in order to take advantage of their rights. We have proposed two additions to the provisions in the 1980 Act to overcome this problem. The first is the proposed new power for the Secretary of State to give assistance in legal disputes. It is already included in clause 10 of the Bill as amended in Committee. We have it in mind that the Secretary of State should use this power to assist right-to-buy purchasers in cases where difficult legal issues arise in relation to covenants or, indeed, to other matters arising under the right to buy; for example, where there is genuine doubt as to the interpretation of the legislation and where other special factors justify that financial assistance.
        It is right that there should be a proposed new power of direction, which is the second of the new provisions we are proposing to tackle the problem of unreasonable covenants and conditions. Under the new clause now being discussed, the Secretary of State will have a power to direct that certain covenants and conditions be discharged or modified if it appears to them that conveyances or leases containing such covenants or conditions would not conform with schedule 2 of the Act. In contrast to the proposed power of assistance, I should emphasise that the power of direction will come into play only in relation to covenants and conditions that are clearly and manifestly at odds with the provisions of the existing legislation. In those circumstances only, it will provide a speedy remedy to tenants, without the need for protracted court proceedings.

        883
        I should emphasise that the Secretary of State's use of this power will, as always, be subject to judicial review. Any direction made by the Secretary of State relating to a covenant or condition will be open to challenge in the courts. The only local authorities who need worry about the implications of this new clause are those who may have been imposing covenants and conditions in the past, or may choose to do so in the future, which do not conform with the existing legislation.
        New clause 8, in effect, inserts two new sections into the 1980 Act. The first, section 24A, provides for the basic new power of direction. The Secretary of State will have power to direct that certain covenants and conditions are not to be included in particular right-to-buy sales if it appears to him that a conveyance or lease containing the covenant or condition would not conform with schedule 2 to the Act. A direction need not necessarily apply to all right-to-buy landlords or to all right-to-buy sales of a particular landlord. Covenants that are reasonable in a lease, for example, may not be reasonable in a freehold conveyance. Equally, covenants that may reasonably be applied to property in, say, a conservation area may not be reasonable elsewhere.
        A direction, once given, may be varied or withdrawn by a subsequent direction, as specified in subsection (2). It is to have no effect, of course, other than in relation to right-to-buy sales, hence subsection (3).
        The second new section—section 24B—provides that a direction may apply to completed as well as to prospective sales. In most situations, it would clearly be unsatisfactory if different covenants applied in respect of neighbouring properties simply because the sale of one property was completed before a direction was issued and the other completed after it. If the direction so provides, therefore, any relevant covenant or condition in a completed conveyance or lease will be discharged or modified as appropriate from the date specified in the direction.
        The mechanics following discharge or modification are also provided for in section 24B. The landlord, or former landlord, is to be under a duty to serve a written notice on the current owner of the dwelling-house, and any chargee, informing him of the discharge or modification and to apply to the chief land registrar for the change to be noted on the register.
        As I have already stated, the remainder of this group of amendments is largely consequential. New clause 9 containing the Secretary of State's power to obtain information is essentially a repeat of the existing clause 9 in the Bill, which is removed by virtue of amendment No. 45. The only difference between the existing clause 9 and the new clause 9 is that the latter provides that the Secretary of State's power to obtain information shall also be exercisable for the purpose of determining whether or not he may exercise his power in this new clause to give directions as to covenants and conditions.
        Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 are consequential amendments that re-order the numbers of two new clauses already agreed in Committee and that are to be inserted into the 1980 Act by the Bill. These are the Secretary of State's power to give assistance under clause 10 and the power of local authorities to contribute towards certain mortgage costs under clause 11.
        884
        Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are again consequential amendments to clause 19 of the Bill, which applies certain provisions of the 1980 Act to the shared ownership scheme.
        I believe that the new clause and the attendant consequential amendments are necessary to serve one simple objective, which I hope can be agreed by the House. However, judging by the manner in which the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) responded previously, I am not confident that there will be unanimity, even on this basic point. We are concerned to see that individual tenants, in respect of the exercising of the right to buy, whether this relates to a house or a flat, manage to secure the legal rights that Parliament has given under the 1980 Act and is considering under this legislation. That is the simple objective of the new clause. I hope that it will be regarded as unexceptionable. I am certain, however, that judging by the way that certain authorities have behaved in imposing highly onerous covenants on some tenants and, in the process, probably jeopardising the marketability of the properties of those tenants, this power of direction is essential. I commend the new clause to the House.
        4.30 pm
        Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has said that the purpose behind the two new clauses is to give tenants greater protection, but the real purpose is to give the Minister even greater power. It is yet another example of an extension of that power and we on the Opposition Benches therefore oppose it.
        New clause 8 gives the Secretary of State more power to give directions about the covenants and conditions that can be contained in any sale agreement. Our first objection to that is that it is another example of the Secretary of State saying that he knows best. Yet again he wants to be judge and jury about what is reasonable or not reasonable. The Minister said earlier that any dispute about covenants could be settled in the courts and explained that elsewhere in the Bill he is giving assistance to tenants or purchasers who want to take local authorities to court. Yet he obviously does not trust the courts because he wants to be able to say what is reasonable rather than leaving it to them to decide. The Minister ought to explain why he thinks he knows better than they do. As he said, what is reasonable in one set of circumstances may not be reasonable in another, yet he believes that it is he, not the local authority or the Government, who ought to decide in all circumstances.
        Our second objection to the clause is shared by members of the Minister's party. Even the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' Conservative housing spokesman does not like parts of it. I understand that he takes exception to its retrospection, which also concerns us. Subsection (2) of Section 24B affects all those covenants and conditions already agreed to as part of contracts that have gone ahead in the past few years. The Minister has not made it clear what will happen to those agreements and charges that have been agreed to by both sides in the past. He is now saying that he knows today what should happen in the future to contracts that were agreed without interference from him.
        If the Minister is to interfere with past contracts, what account will he take of the important fact that the price agreed for a particular purchase in the past would have taken account of any covenants and conditions laid down

        885
        at that time. If he is now to wipe out any previous covenants and conditions, it means that the previously agreed purchase price will be rendered artificially low.
        The Minister has often told us that the public sector should, where possible, imitate the private sector. When someone agrees to purchase a house on a private estate or from a private builder, conditions will often be written into the agreement about what can be done with that property. Yet the Minister is ignoring all that in the private sector. He is simply saying that local authorities or public landlords must be subject to new powers, that he must decide what is reasonable in any given circumstances, how they must behave and what conditions they can put into sales agreements. We are, therefore, opposed to the Minister's proposals, especially with regard to new clause 8.
        We have discussed new clause 9 in Committee, albeit briefly. The Minister knows that we are not happy with the intention behind it. Here again he is extending his power to intervene: we have Big Brother breathing down the necks of the local authorities once more. The Minister is taking on himself power to demand any papers that the local authority may have on any matters relating to sales. We are not talking merely about those authorities that may be in conflict with the Minister or about local authorities against which the Minister is taking action. As new clause 9 reads, the Minister can now demand any papers from any authority at any time in any circumstances on the basis that he may be considering intervention at some later stage. That is a blank cheque for the Minister to interfere and to call for any information from any local authority officer, just as the fancy takes him.
        The Minister may be putting many local government officials in a difficult position. They will have to decide whether they are to obey an instruction from the Secretary of State or an instruction from their employers. We do not think that the Minister should put individual local authority employees in this position. If the Minister believes that there is a case to be answered by a local authority, then he should take action against it rather than intimidate officials into giving him information on an individual basis by directing them to provide him with papers.
        Neither new clause 8 nor new clause 9 is justifiable. They are another example of the Minister interfering in the affairs of local authorities. We are very unhappy with the progress that the Minister is suggesting on these particular clauses.
        Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady's comments on new clause 9 are quite the wrong way round. If a local authority believes that a covenant is reasonable, I should expect it to volunteer the information. The only reason for hiding it is if a covenant is unreasonable. She says that local authorities may complain about too much interference from central Government. As this pair of clauses is part of what I might call the Greenwich parts of the Housing and Building Control Bill, I should like her to know that the greatest complaints in Greenwich at the moment are about too little Government interference, now that all ratepayers —domestic, industrial and commercial — are having to suffer a 30 per cent. increase. There is a ratepayers', residents' and tenants' revolt in Greenwich, and I believe these new clauses will help to calm especially council tenants who want to buy and those who have bought.
        886
        On new clause 8, two major complaints brought to me —besides general interference with the right to buy—have been about amenity charges for launderettes and for greens. Many would-be purchasers and some who have bought after reluctantly accepting covenants, but putting their trust in my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, have said that they do not even know where their launderettes are, and they are certainly not always within useable distance. If found, they do not always work, and there is no reason to believe that they are for the exclusive use of council tenants or residents of a particular estate or area.
        It is unreasonable for this to be put on the housing revenue account and for people who have bought the freehold or long leasehold of their home to have to pay for a share in municipal enterprises which appear to run at a loss.
        As regards greens, until people started buying their homes from the local authority no one knew that greens were paid for out of the housing revenue account. I do not believe that even the council knew. The assumption was that they were paid for out of rates. They ought to be paid for out of rates. Not only do I believe it to be wrong to allow covenants to be maintained that will require people who have bought their homes to continue to pay for what are often dogs' lavatories, but I believe that existing tenants should not be required to pay for them out of rents. The burden should be put on the rates instead. If they are part of amenity land, they are available to people whether they own their homes or not. It is wrong that a restrictive covenant, requiring people to pay an uncertain amount that may increase with the rate of inflation, or any different amount, should continue.
        There are also covenants requiring people in houses that they could externally decorate themselves to have them redecorated by the council. When the council has been asked to give an estimate before a right to buy has gone through, it has made one estimate and then has made another which may be more than double the first. When asked to justify the difference, it has not done so. It has picked a figure out of the sky. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that kind of uncertain covenant as this new clause goes through.
        The Government and my party have gained the reputation of being on the side of ordinary people who want the chance to buy their homes without restrictions that will continue into the future. The local and national Labour parties are making a big mistake in even suggesting that, for reasons of mobility and so on, they want to hinder people owning their own homes. I look forward to the time when people can own their homes without restriction. We can then concentrate on increasing the number of homes available to people under forms of tenure that they will choose.
        Mr. John Cartwright: Like the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), I want to relate my brief comments on new clause 8 to the experience of our constituents at the hands of the London borough of Greenwich. In the past, I have wearied both the Standing Committee and the House with details of some of the service charges that are applied by the London borough of Greenwich. I do not propose to repeat them, but I endorse the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West.

        887
        The oddest service charge that has come to my notice recently is one that is being levied on a number of people buying council houses—£90 a year for the upkeep of a tenants' meeting room. I do not know why people who become owner-occupiers should be required to maintain a tenants' meeting room.
        This very small room was at the bottom of a block of flats, next to the laundry, and in no sense could it be termed a meeting room. It would not hold many people, there was not one chair in it, and it was in a bad state of decoration. Yet my constituents who are buying their homes are apparently expected to pay for the upkeep of a room which no one can remember having been used for a meeting.
        I wish to concentrate on the restrictive covenant element of the new clause. I should like to quote from the transfer document produced by the London borough of Greenwich, which runs to 11 pages of restrictions and conditions on those who purchase their homes. For example, the transferors—the council—
        "shall have power at all times without obtaining any consent from or making any compensation to the Transferee"—
        the purchaser—
        "to deal as the Transferors may think fit with any lands or buildings adjoining opposite or near to the property hereby transferred and to erect or suffer to be erected on any adjoining opposite or neighbouring land any buildings whatsoever whether such buildings shall or shall not affect or diminish the light or air which may now or at any time hereafter be enjoyed by the Transferee".
        That is an extraordinary way for a local council to operate in relation to any of its citizens, whether or not they are buying their council houses. The council is saying that it has a total and absolute right to build whatever it likes, whatever the effects may be on one of its citizens who has purchased his own home.
        In addition, the purchaser must agree:
        "Not to make any alterations or additions to the existing dwellinghouse garage …or fences nor erect or construct any additional building"
        without first gaining permission of the local authority and paying the reasonable fees of the local authority.
        Particularly annoying is the fact that the purchaser must agree:
        "Not to keep or allow to be kept any animal other than one cat and/or small bird or (in the case of a dwelling with a garden attached) one dog, cat and/or a small bird".
        Apparently, Greenwich tenants are allowed to keep a marvellous combination of animals. That is an intrusive and offensive condition when applied to council tenants, but I simply cannot understand why it should apply to people who have bought the freehold of their own homes. I could quote other examples, the restrictive nature of which is similar.
        I endorse what the Minister has said. Solicitors in my area have clearly said that if a purchaser tries to sell his property later such covenants will make it difficult because of the restrictions that they impose on the way in which anyone can live in the property. As a result, the retail value will be affected.
        I understand the case made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor). I do not like Government interference in local authority affairs. As a general principle, I am opposed to it. However, when she says that
        888
        those who have a complaint against their local authority can go to the courts, I begin to wonder whether she lives in the same world as the rest of us.
        We are talking about council tenants—people who have never bought a house before, and most of whom have never before been across the threshold of a solicitor's office. They are completely at sea about all this. When they tell us that the council has been most unfair and we say, "Terribly sorry, but you must go to court", we know only too well what their reaction will be. There is no way in which they can take such legal redress. Anxious though I am about increased Government interference in the affairs of local authorities, I believe that people who have used their rights under the law and bought their council houses are entitled to some protection when their rights are undermined by local authorities. On those grounds, I support new clause 8.
        4.45 pm
        Mr. Stanley: I shall not reply now as I believe that an early vote is expected and the Opposition wish to press on.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 9

        SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ETC.
        "Secretary of State's power to obtain information etc.
        '(1) After section 24B of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
        24C.—(l) Where it appears to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient for the purpose of determining whether his powers under section 23, 24A or 24B above are exercisable, or for or in connection with the exercise of those powers, the Secretary of State may by notice in writing to a landlord require it—

        (a) at such time and at such place as may be specified in the notice, to produce any document; or

        (b) within such period as may be so specified or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow, to furnish a copy of any document or supply any information;

        and any officer of the landlord designated in the notice for that purpose or having custody or control of the document or in a position to give the information shall, without instructions from the landlord, take all reasonable steps to ensure that the notice is complied with.
        (2) Any reference in subsection (1) above to a landlord includes a reference to—

        (a) a landlord by whom a conveyance or grant was executed in pursuance of this Chapter; and

        (b) a body which has become a mortgagee in consequence of the exercise by a secure tenant of the right to a mortgage."

        (2) Subsection (5) of section 23 of the 1980 Act (which is superseded by subsection (1) above) shall be omitted and in subsection (11) of that section for the words "subsection (5) to (10)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (6) to (10)".'.—[Mr. Stanley.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 2

        LIMITED PERIOD OF LIABILITY
        'A civil action against any person for a breach of duty on his part in acting as an inspector appointed under this Act shall not be brought more than ten years from the time when the breach of duty occurred, any rule of law or enactment to the contrary notwithstanding.'.—[Mr. Chapman.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The clause relates to part II of the Bill which sets out the building control provisions. It supersedes the new clause that I tabled in Committee, which was disallowed because in part it was outside the scope of the Bill.
        The purpose is to limit the period of liability for latent defects, but, to be in order, the new clause can refer only to an approved
        "inspector, appointed under this Act".
        The objective is to mitigate what will generally be accepted on both sides as an admitted defect in the law of liability.
        The public interest in avoiding building defects is safeguarded through the administration of building control. If a defect occurs, an injured party has a remedy in damages that can be awarded by the civil courts. It is necessary that the position of approved inspectors should be made clear, as should be the position of everyone else involved in the building process. There is a need to amend the law as a result of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Anns v. the London borough of Merton in 1977. Indeed, that point was acknowledged by the Lords of Appeal in the more recent case of the Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd. v. Oscar Faber and Partners in December 1982.
        Anns v. Merton made clear the general legal principle for defining the liabilities of public authorities of all kinds for negligence in the performance of their statutory functions. The problem was that in its wisdom the House of Lords decided that the limitation period begins when the defective state of the building first appeared—not, for example, when the breach of duty occurred or from when the property was conveyed to the injured party. The House might have thought that the Pirelli case resolved the position and makes it tenable, at least until Parliament in its wisdom decides to amend the law.
        Pirelli stated that the limitation starts when the damage occurs—not when it becomes apparent. However, two difficulties arise. First, as I understand the position, the law is not explicit as to when the damage occurs. Secondly, a careful perusal of the Pirelli case shows that the limitation period for a local authority is different from when the damage occurs, because the local authority's responsibility under Acts of Parliament is from the time when there is danger to the health or safety of occupants. Therefore, local authorities have a longer period of liability.
        This matter has caused concern because anyone—or, indeed, every party to the building process—now cannot know whether he has ceased to be at risk for claims unless —I should add, for the sake of legal precision—the building in question has been demolished for a period of at least six years. I forget who built the Tower of London, but he or his successor—according to my interpretation of the law, and under the law as interpreted by the House of Lords and the Lords of Appeal—is, I suppose, still at risk for a claim.
        I assert that it is unreasonable to assume that approved inspectors, or a builder or designer of a building, or anyone else, should be expected to have the resources—they would need to be considerable resources—to cover the risk of claims for an indefinite period. It is unjust to expect that, and in my opinion Parliament should
        890
        acknowledge that. I believe that the present interpretation of the law is an impediment to the administration of justice and defeats the purpose for which the Limitation Acts have been passed.
        The new clause that I tabled in Committee need in no way prejudice the long-awaited proposal of the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee looking into this whole matter of the law of liability for latent defects. This new clause, which is more limited, also need not prejudice its proposals. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will tell the House when the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee will report. I know that the Minister is aware, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware, that it is vital and urgent that this matter which affects not only approved inspectors but local authorities and other public authorities, as well as builders, architects and property owners, should be cleared up. At least parts of parts II and III of the Bill are prejudiced and, in all practicality, could not be introduced or implemented until the law of liability is dealt with.
        Mr. Robert Litherland: In our Second Reading debate and throughout Committee, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) expressed his concern and that of the RIBA about the law of liability. The hon. Gentleman expressed amazement in an earlier debate that there was no time limit to liability in the present law, and he endeavoured to introduce a new clause in Committee.
        The hon. Gentleman and the Government are aware of the grave reservations that architects have about this part of the Bill. They have expressed their opinions in no uncertain terms. It has been said that only an idiot would accept such responsibilities of unlimited liability. The president of the RIBA firmly pointed out that the present state of the law places an indefinite and unreasonable burden on architects, and said that the RIBA could not recommend to its members the changes that are envisaged. That is why the new clause has been introduced by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet at this stage.
        The Government have not convinced the building fraternity that the Bill's provisions will enhance standards of construction. It believes that the standards of health and safety will be lowered if building control becomes a mixture of public bodies, private individuals, professional practices and other organisations.
        We have felt throughout the Bill, and it is clear from the correspondence that we have received, that there is no real desire for change. The public want protection and a feeling of security. They want to know that the building that they occupy is safe—not that if it were to fall down around them they would be able to claim on insurance. I agree with NALGO's view that the building control function should remain democratically accountable and certainly independent. The new concept is unwieldy, impractical and intended to destroy the local authority building control service.
        The RIBA has advanced arguments for amending the law. It says that, as a matter of public policy, building owners and others should be entitled to reasonable protection against latent defects. It is not satisfied that justice and public interest are adequately served by the law as it stands. Indeed, one might query what is reasonable and what is protection. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet would agree that good design, good

        891
        workmanship and good materials are the first priority. In his clause he proposes a definite limitation on the period of liability and suggests that
        "a civil action against any person for a breach of duty on his part in acting as an inspector … shall not be brought more than ten years from the time when the breach of duty occurred".
        In his speech, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the areas of vagueness.
        In Committee and in the Chamber I have referred to a whole estate in my constituency that is now being demolished after only 11 years. There are 1,000 dwellings on the estate. The cost is in millions of pounds. I suggest that that could not be insured privately. The new clause may seek to rectify faults in the law of liability, but I am afraid that they are so complex that they would require a far more detailed reappraisal. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intention, but I am afraid that his new clause is outside the scope of the Bill.
        Mr. Ted Graham: The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) was right when he said that the present state of the law will make parts II and III of the Bill unworkable unless there are major changes in the law of liability. Apparently, the Government have been given advice by people who have assured them that if the Bill becomes law it will work. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has been assured by his many contacts in the building construction industry that it will not work. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) has given us the views of professional people involved in the construction business. Moreover, in Committee we heard the evidence of many people who are quite happy for the Bill to work, provided changes are made.
        We must recognise the enormity of the change that is involved, from a situation that is designed to prevent defects to one that provides compensation once the defects have become apparent.
        5 pm
        Let me remind the House of what the former Secretary of State for the Environment said when the changes in the building regulations were being considered. At a conference in 1979 he said:
        "Let me trail one in front of you—without, let me stress this, any commitment. Why should local authorities bear this enormous responsibility for all construction put up in their area? If anything goes wrong, years later, and the builder has departed the scene, then the local authority, which can never depart the scene, is required to answer."
        That is the position that is enjoyed by every consumer, ratepayer, and person who is likely to suffer a hurt or detriment under the present law. If, at the end of the day, the court awards vast sums in damages that are not covered by any insurance the local authority must pick up the pieces.
        The Government are seeking to change that. The new clause seeks to bring about a necessary limitation. The Government have a difficult job of marrying that which is impossible to get—a workable insurance arrangement—with their determination to foist upon the House and the British people a situation that will not work.
        Let me quote from a letter that was sent to the ubiquitous Mr. Watson. The British Insurance Association said:
        "Professional liability insurance would inevitably be subject to limits of amount and time and some basic policy conditions."
        892
        That is what the new clause seeks to do. The Government have already said that they are not prepared to make any changes before the Lord Chancellor's report on liability is produced. One of the basic, crucial and stupendous weaknesses of the Bill is that the element upon which it rests—adequate insurance—is being denied support by the insurance industry.
        Although the new clause has provided a useful peg upon which to hang the arguments that have been going backwards and forwards, I regret that the Bill is unworkable in the general field. If the Government seek merely to operate the scheme in the low rise, National House Building Council context there will be other problems as well. The National House Building Council is doing a good job within its limits but it is simply yet another insurance company in this context. It provides its warranty and then seeks to meet the defects that arise. However, it is not competent to take on the task that the Minister has said is likely to flow from the Bill. Labour Members remain sceptical, not only of the premises upon which the Bill is based but also upon the ability of the Government, the industry and the British people to make it work.
        The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that the Government share their concern at the current state of the law on liability and we hope that a solution can be found that is fairer to all parties concerned. I congratulate my hon. Friend on putting his new clause in order on this occasion and on explaining clearly what is a confused position.
        I understand how strongly the architectural profession feels about the difficulties with which it is faced by the present law of liability. It seems to it unfair that long after the normal six-year period for actions in negligence has expired it can find itself in court justifying design work that it thought had been successfully finished perhaps as long as 20 years previously. The feeling of unfairness is shared by other professions involved in the design and construction of buildings and also by building contractors. Local authorities, in their role as building control authorities, are also conscious of the burden that the present apparently unlimited liability lays on them as well.
        I have much sympathy with what has been said about the new clause. However, three points must be borne in mind as we consider it. First, as has already been touched on, we must remember that the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee is examining the law of liability and its application to cases where damage may have been latent for a considerable time. Latent damage in buildings is obviously an important part of the question, but it is not the whole of it. Latent damage can be found in other areas—for example, in the drafting of wills by solicitors where defects may be undetected for years and are discovered only when the will is proved. Therefore, we must be careful not to pre-empt the conclusions of the Law Reform Committee on the broader front.
        I regret that I cannot say when the committee will finish its deliberations and produce its report, but I hope that it will be as soon as possible. As we made clear in Committee, we do not accept the proposition that this section of the Bill cannot be implemented until the Law Reform Committee has completed its work. I shall not

        893
        weary the House with the details, but on several occasions in Committee we explained on what basis the insurance arrangements outlined in the Bill can proceed.
        The second point to bear in mind is that, given the strong likelihood that the Law Reform Committee will recommend some change in the general law of liability, any provision that we might make in this limited area would inevitably be only an interim change, possibly of short duration. It would soon require further changes to bring it into line with whatever general solution may be proposed following the Law Reform Committee's considerations. Such a succession of changes would be confusing and would not be in the best interests of those concerned. After all, we are talking about the need for long term certainty in an area that is at present blighted by uncertainty.
        Thirdly, we must consider the potential unfairness of changing the liability for private certification on its own. Not only would the architects and engineers have a different liability for their design work, or even for any work of supervision carried out under their ordinary contracts, not only would contractors have a different liability for their part of the work, but local authorities would be obliged to carry a significantly different burden of liability—indefinite as opposed to confined. The new clause does not affect local authorities and I do not see how one can begin to justify that on grounds of equity.
        For those reasons, the Government cannot support the new clause and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw it in the light of my comments.
        Mr. Chapman: I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Minister and I appreciate his pertinent comments. I have also listened to the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and I concede immediately that my new clause has been drawn far too narrowly for the wishes of hon. Members. In the hope that legislation will be put before Parliament in the next Session—whether this or the other side of a general election—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 3

        PROTECTION FOR ELDERLY ORPHANS AND OTHERS
        `In section 34 of the Housing Act 1980 at the end shall be added—
        "(5) In considering subsection 3(a) above the court must take account of:

        (a) the age of the tenant; and

        (b) the length of residence of the tenant in the dwelling house; and

        (c) the financial, physical or other support given by the tenant to the previous tenant; and

        (d) where the landlord claims possession on the ground of under-occupation evidence of the efforts of the landlord to encourage other over-occupiers to transfer to smaller dwelling houses; and

        (e) the social and financial consequences of making the order on other carers for elderly dependants who may be discouraged from continuing to reside with and care for elderly dependants.".'.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Peter Bottomley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        This is the elderly orphan problem. It will diminish but it is acute to those who suffer. It deals with people who
        894
        stay at home until the age of 40, 60 or even 70, caring for elderly relations, who, when their elderly surviving parent dies, may be required to move from the council home in which they have lived for up to 50 years. It is a diminishing problem because with the right-to-buy legislation more and more families will own their home and be able to stay in it, only moving when they choose to.
        At present the law is in great doubt. The only case of which I know is that of the London borough of Greenwich and Mr. Peter Hunt where the judgment was that Mr. Hunt could stay in his home but only because he had a damaged leg. I want the courts to take account of the effect on other elderly orphans being forced to move. My predecessor, Mr. Bill Hamling, helped to found the national council for the single woman and her dependants, which is now called the national council for carers and elderly dependants. If the new clause is not approved by the House, the matter will be taken up in another place where I suspect that it will be carried whatever the advice of the Attorney-General's Department on the possible defects in the drafting. There will clearly be a good attendance in another place and I believe that the Members there will transfer their attentions on charitable housing associations to the new clause to ensure that something is written in.
        It is important that councils should consider that what they are doing is reasonable. In Committee the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Bootle (Mr. Roberts), and, I suspect, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) expressed much sympathy for people like Mr. Hunt and others in similar situations. I am grateful to the London borough of Greenwich for giving serious consideration to the representations made by local Members of Parliament a week or so ago. We are awaiting a review of its policy. However, if we want to be caring in the community and to make it easier for people to carry out their family responsibilities, we want to make sure that poor council tenants are in the same position as those who are able to buy their own homes and as private tenants.
        Mr. David EnnalsI have a great deal of sympathy for the new clause. I wish to touch only on paragraph (b)—
        "the length of residence of the tenant in the dwelling house".
        I do so because in Committee on 3 February, the Minister, in columns 822 and 823, castigated the Norwich city council for its policy on mutual exchange to secure the right to buy. The Minister was most unfair to Norwich council. He falsified its motives, and I wish to record its problems, which are revealing.
        At least one member of the city council became aware of a practice that had emerged whereby two tenants would agree to exchange properties, and when one tenant was moving into a modernised property or into a property in a sought-after area that tenant would pay the other a sum of money—in effect, key money for the privilege of moving. Therefore, the intention was for that tenant to submit a right-to-buy application in respect of the property into which he or she had recently moved.
        If that practice had been allowed to continue, it would have meant that all of the newer and more desirable council houses could have been sold off under the existing right-to-buy provisions, leaving the city without an adequate range of alternative stock to meet its other statutory housing duties. I was surprised that the Minister criticised the Norwich city council for using a provision

        895
        in the Housing Act 1980 to regulate and fulfil its housing obligation reasonably without being a willing party to a most undesirable practice, which I have described, and which has been described by the Norwich city council.
        Mr. Stanley: In response to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Enna1s), I make it clear that the effect of what Norwich council was doing was to make a mutual exchange between Norwich council tenants conditional on their surrendering secure tenancy status. Therefore, they were surrendering their legal right to buy their homes. I regard it as indefensible that one should manipulate the wishes of a tenant to try to arrange a mutual exchange so as to deprive him or her of legal rights agreed by the House.
        I am in sympathy with the intention behind the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). He has set out clearly why he felt that there was a possible or threatened injustice with regard to his constituent Mr. Peter Hunt. I agree with him that local authorities should adopt a sensitive and compassionate approach on a case-by-case basis when deciding whether a successor tenant should remain in a family home when a parent has died. I hope that, as a matter of policy, we would agree on that on both sides of the House.
        However, although I sympathise with the intention behind the new clause, my overriding concern must be whether the new clause would, in the courts' interpretation, serve the best interest of the successor tenant. My hon. Friend has referred specifically to the case of Mr. Hunt. The case in question arose when the council served notice seeking possession under ground 13 of schedule 4 to the Housing Act 1980, when Mr. Peter Hunt's mother died.
        This provides a ground to repossess where, under the succession rules set out in section 30(2)(b) of the 1980 Act, a member of the family, other than the spouse, of the previous tenant has succeeded to the tenancy and the dwelling is thereby under-occupied. Section 34(2) of the Act requires that a court shall not make the order for seeking possession unless the court both considers it reasonable to do so and is satisfied that suitable accommodation will be available for the tenant when the order takes effect. New clause 3 seeks to amplify the reasonableness test by requiring that five specific factors should be taken into account when the court considers the order for possession.
        Having considered the evidence most carefully with my legal advisers, including the judgment in the Peter Hunt case, which my hon. Friend kindly sent me, the clear legal conclusion is that the new clause is not necessary and, more important, could actually work against the interests of successor tenants in some circumstances. I should like to elaborate on both points.
        5.15 pm
        I briefly explain the reasons for this, as I hope that it will help my hon. Friend. The case for specifying in primary legislation particular factors as to what should be taken into account in assessing reasonableness rests on the presumption that the courts may not otherwise take into account all the relevant factors in deciding whether possession is reasonable. I am unaware of any other reported decisions on possession orders in the case of
        896
        secure tenancies using ground 13, apart from the Peter Hunt case. However, I am advised that the court will consider every relevant circumstance in assessing reasonableness. This is certainly the position under section 98 of the Rent Act 1977 when a court determines whether repossession is reasonable, for example, in the case of a private landlord seeking repossession of a house to live in it himself under case 9, schedule 15 of the Rent Act 1977.
        In the case involving Peter Hunt the court did not agree the council's repossession order because in the court's opinion suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant was not available as is required under section 34(3)(a) of the Housing Act 1980.
        The court went on to consider whether, if suitable alternative accommodation had been available, it would have been reasonable to make the possession order. The court decided that it would have been reasonable. However, it would not be right to conclude that, although the court on this count said it would have found in favour of Greenwich council rather than in favour of Mr. Hunt, this means that the court ignored other factors, to which my hon. Friend referred. The judgment makes it clear that the court found the defendant's arguments relating to his personal circumstances attractive, but not sufficiently so as to outweigh the council's housing responsibilities. The judgment goes so far as to record that the court weighed everything, including factors other than those just mentioned. My hon. Friend is also recorded in the judgment as giving evidence which brought an important factor into consideration, although the nature of the evidence is not recorded.
        Both in this specific case, therefore, and in the light of the considerable body of case law in repossession cases as to what courts can take into account in assessing reasonableness, I do not believe that my hon. Friend should conclude that the factors that he has specified in his new clause would be ignored by a court. It does not, therefore, seem that the new clause is necessary.
        However, in addition, I am advised that to specify one particular set of factors—and there are a great many more that could be specified—is likely to work against the interests of tenants generally. Specifying factors would be likely to result in added weight being given to the specified factors and less weight being given to other factors not specified, which could be even more significant in other individual cases. The courts would be likely to conclude that Parliament's purpose in specifying certain factors but not others was to give particular stress to some factors at the expense of others.
        For example, a factor not mentioned in the new clause is the health of the tenant, yet in a particular case that could be decisive in enabling a tenant to remain in his home. If we rest on the general requirement of reasonable, that factor could be regarded as being of the utmost and indeed decisive importance. However, if we were to adopt the new clause the decisiveness of the health factor could perhaps be successfully challenged by the council seeking possession because it had not been referred to in the legislation.
        For those reasons, although I sympathise with the intentions behind my hon. Friend's wishes to have his constituents in Greenwich properly treated, and I agree that the council in the case to which he has referred should have been more helpful to his constituent, I am not persuaded that the new clause specifying new factors would, in the generality of cases, necessarily be

        897
        advantageous and helpful in achieving a fair and equitable solution on a case-by-case basis to the successor tenant problem. From my explanation, which I have made as full as possible, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand why there are good and sound legal reasons why we have not accepted his new clause.
        Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I give him notice that in due time my provisions will pass into the statute law of the country. I suggest that he gets his advisers on to what I am after and what he has said that he is after so that what we agree upon is put into a form that he believes will not have adverse effects.
        Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (5) are to do with the past and are not tested by the judgment in the Hunt case. Subsection (5)(e) relates to the general effect on others and care in the community. That is part of Government policy and the public good. I am willing to withdraw the new clause but I shall return to it. I suggest that my hon. Friend gets his thinking cap on, kicks his legal advisers and tells them that what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West is after is what the Minister is after, that that is what they should be after and that it should be got on to the statute book so that we can all be satisfied.
        I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 10

        APPROVED INSPECTOR TO AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
        `An approved inspector who gives an initial notice shall until a final notice has been given under section 28 be precluded, either by himself or by an agent, from providing any services or exercising any functions in relation to the work specified in the notice other than the provision of services and the exercise of functions for enforcing the building regulations.'—[Mr. Graham.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Graham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        New clause 10 is yet another attempt by the Opposition to write on to the face of the Bill words that will make it abundantly clear that there is no dubiety about the independence of approved inspectors.
        We have received advice from all quarters about the unease that is and will be felt by the professional bodies involved about the Bill in its present form. The Institute of Building Control Officers, the Society of Chief Building Control Officers, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National and Local Government Officers Association, and a range of architects, surveyors and engineers who, perhaps, in the fullness of time will earn the accolade of "approved inspector", are uneasy. I accept that the Minister and his advisers understand that tests of independence have been set up. Nevertheless, we must be clear that there is complete independence.
        We want to ensure that as long as an approved inspector supervises building control regulations on a project—once he has given an initial notice until the final notice has been given under section 28—he shall be precluded, either by himself or by an agency, from providing any service or exercising any function in relation to that work.
        We accept that people who are appointed as approved inspectors will be competent men or women. We hope that
        898
        there will eventually be a system by which approved inspectors will not merely have to have the appropriate letters after their name automatically to qualify as approved inspectors. They should also have additional training. We want a system that ensures that the qualities and character of an approved inspector are what we would like.
        In the business world, there is what one might call a close relationship between partnerships of architects, surveyors, engineers and other professionals. We envisage circumstances in which a competent, qualified and honest person carrying out his examination of a project in compliance with the building regulations will have to decide whether to approve, disapprove, stop or start a project when such decisions cut across his professional judgment and may have a direct effect on commercial interests that will be disadvantaged if he acts on them.
        That cannot occur under the present system. A building inspector's decision may cut across the best interests of a professional association or body. The independence and integrity of public building inspectors is not challenged as being other than in the best interests of the builder, the developer and the consumer.
        When the Minister rejected a similar amendment in Committee, he said that the relationship that we hinted at could not be envisaged for all-time. We have redrawn it simply to say that, as long as an inspector carries out his functions between issuing the initial notice and issuing the final one—that may take six months or two years—he should have no relationship with anyone if that relationship impugns his independence.
        The Opposition hope that the Minister will take the intention of the new clause on board. It is intended to make it crystal clear on the face of the Bill that there will be no dubiety about the independence of the inspectors when they undertake their major responsibilities. I strongly hope that the new clause will be accepted.
        Sir George Young: The objective of new clause 10 is to ensure that approved inspectors who check designs and supervise construction work act independently and are not engaged in any other capacity on the work in question.
        We explained in Committee that we understand and share that objective. I am happy to repeat it. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) explained his intention. We share it. However, the drafting of the new clause in no way matches the hon. Gentleman's intention, as I shall explain. The Bill already contains the mechanisms that we need to ensure that the certifiers are independent. I hope to convince the House that those mechanisms will be more flexible and reliable than they would be under new clause 10.
        The hon. Gentleman wants to prevent the designer from being judge and jury in his own case and does not want someone who has designed a major building or piece of construction work to be entirely and solely responsible for deciding whether it complies with the building regulations. He wants an independent check but the new clause as drafted would not achieve that end. It would exclude a certifier from any other involvement with the project only between the service of the initial notice and the giving of a final certificate. It would not prevent someone who had designed a building from then proceeding to serve an initial notice in respect of it as an approved inspector.

        899
        The hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a fundamental defect in the new clause. It would not give him the assurance that he wants. We shall achieve that objective and secure the independence of the certifier through regulations under clause 24 which require an approved inspector who serves an initial notice to declare that he has no involvement in the design of the project, and that he has no connection with it, other than as certifier. The new clause does not do that. Local authorities would be required to reject initial notices which did not contain such a declaration. Further regulations could be made under clause 28 to require final certificates to confirm that the certifier's independence was maintained when he was exercising his functions as an approved inspector. It will, of course, be an offence under clause 34 to make a fake statement in an initial notice of a final certificate.
        Proceeding in that way by regulations would not only enable us to establish firm control over the independence of certifiers of major projects; it would enable us to distinguish projects where the independence of the certifier is essential from minor works where it might be reasonable to allow limited self-certification. That idea was advanced in our command paper on the future of building control. In paragraph 28 we suggested that "self-certifiable" categories to be specified in regulations would include
        "single storey house extensions not exceeding 60 metre squared in area;"
        and
        "alterations in low rise houses within the existing envelope;"
        That has been supported by the Royal Institution of British Architects and the Institution of Structural Engineers, who have urged on us the importance of preserving the possibility of limited self-certification. It would be wrong now to close the door on self-certification in those cases. There must be the fullest possible public consultation on the precise limits before regulations are laid. Against that background, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his motion.
        Mr. Graham: Yet again the Minister asks the House to accept his assurance that all will be well in the prescribed regulations. We are not prepared to accept that assurance. We want those words written into the Bill, and when the matter is put to the vote we shall support it.
        It being half-past Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 265.

        Division No. 98]

        [5.30 pm

        AYES

        Abse, Leo

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Allaun, Frank

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

        Alton, David

        Bradley, Tom

        Anderson, Donald

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Ashton, Joe

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

        Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

        Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

        Buchan, Norman

        Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Beith, A. J.

        Canavan, Dennis

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Cant, R. B.

        Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

        Carmichael, Neil

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Cartwright, John

        900

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        McElhone, Mrs Helen

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

        McKelvey, William

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

        McTaggart, Robert

        Cohen, Stanley

        Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

        Coleman, Donald

        Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Crowther, Stan

        Mason, Rt Hon Roy

        Cryer, Bob

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Meacher, Michael

        Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

        Mikardo, Ian

        Dalyell, Tam

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Davidson, Arthur

        Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

        Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

        Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

        Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

        Deakins, Eric

        Newens, Stanley

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Dewar, Donald

        Ogden, Eric

        Dixon, Donald

        O'Halloran, Michael

        Dobson, Frank

        O'Neill, Martin

        Dormand, Jack

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Douglas, Dick

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Park, George

        Dunnett, Jack

        Parker, John

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Parry, Robert

        Eadie, Alex

        Penhaligon, David

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

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

        Price, C. (Lewisham W)

        English, Michael

        Race, Reg

        Ennals, Rt Hon David

        Richardson, Jo

        Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

        Ewing, Harry

        Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Robertson, George

        Field, Frank

        Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

        Flannery, Martin

        Rooker, J. W.

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Roper, John

        Ford, Ben

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Foulkes, George

        Rowlands, Ted

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

        Sandelson, Neville

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        Sever, John

        Freud, Clement

        Sheerman, Barry

        Garrett, John (Norwich S)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Golding, John

        Short, Mrs Renée

        Graham, Ted

        Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

        Grimond, Rt Hon J.

        Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

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

        Silverman, Julius

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Skinner, Dennis

        Haynes, Frank

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Soley, Clive

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Spearing, Nigel

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

        Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

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

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Home Robertson, John

        Stallard, A. W.

        Hooley, Frank

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Howell, Rt Hon D.

        Stoddart, David

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Strang, Gavin

        Huckfield, Les

        Straw, Jack

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

        Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Tilley, John

        Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

        Torney, Tom

        Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

        Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

        John, Brynmor

        Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

        Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

        Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

        Jones, Dan (Burnley)

        Warden, Gareth

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Welsh, Michael

        Kerr, Russell

        White, Frank R.

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

        Kinnock, Neil

        Whitlock, William

        Lambie, David

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Lamond, James

        Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

        Leighton, Ronald

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

        Lestor, Miss Joan

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

        Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

        Wilson, William (C'try SE)

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Winnick, David

        Litherland, Robert

        Woodall, Alec

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Wright, Sheila

        901

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Mr. James Hamilton and

        Mr. George Morton.

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        NOES

        Alexander, Richard

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

        Ancram, Michael

        Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

        Arnold, Tom

        Fry, Peter

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

        Gardner, Sir Edward

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Banks, Robert

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Bendall, Vivian

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

        Best, Keith

        Greenway, Harry

        Bevan, David Gilroy

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

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Grist, Ian

        Blackburn, John

        Grylls, Michael

        Body, Richard

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Bowden, Andrew

        Hannam, John

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Hastings, Stephen

        Bright, Graham

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Brinton, Tim

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Heddle, John

        Brotherton, Michael

        Henderson, Barry

        Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

        Hicks, Robert

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

        Holland, Philip (Carlton)

        Budgen, Nick

        Hooson, Tom

        Burden, Sir Frederick

        Hordern, Peter

        Butcher, John

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

        Carlisle, John (Luton West)

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

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

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Chapman, Sydney

        Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

        Churchill, W. S.

        Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

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

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Kaberry, Sir Donald

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Clegg, Sir Walter

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Cockeram, Eric

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

        Colvin, Michael

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Cope, John

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Cormack, Patrick

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Corrie, John

        Knox, David

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Lang, Ian

        Cranbome, Viscount

        Langford-Holt, Sir John

        Critchley, Julian

        Latham, Michael

        Crouch, David

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Lee, John

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        Le Merchant, Spencer

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Durant, Tony

        Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

        Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

        Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

        Loveridge, John

        Eggar, Tim

        Luce, Richard

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Eyre, Reginald

        McCrindle, Robert

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Faith, Mrs Sheila

        MacGregor, John

        Farr, John

        MacKay, John (Argyll)

        Fenner, Mrs Peggy

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

        Finsberg, Geoffrey

        McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

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

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

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

        Major, John

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Marland, Paul

        Forman, Nigel

        Marlow, Antony

        902

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Mates, Michael

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Mawby, Ray

        Shepherd, Richard

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Silvester, Fred

        Mayhew, Patrick

        Sims, Roger

        Mellor, David

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Speed, Keith

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Speller, Tony

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Spence, John

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

        Moate, Roger

        Sproat, Iain

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Squire, Robin

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Stainton, Keith

        Moore, John

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Morgan, Geraint

        Stanley, John

        Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

        Steen, Anthony

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Stevens, Martin

        Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

        Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

        Mudd, David

        Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

        Murphy, Christopher

        Stokes, John

        Myles, David

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Neale, Gerrard

        Tapsell, Peter

        Needham, Richard

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Neubert, Michael

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Newton, Tony

        Thompson, Donald

        Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

        Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Osborn, John

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Parris, Matthew

        Viggers, Peter

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        Wakeham, John

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Pawsey, James

        Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

        Percival, Sir Ian

        Walker, B. (Perth)

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

        Pollock, Alexander

        Wall, Sir Patrick

        Porter, Barry

        Waller, Gary

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Walters, Dennis

        Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

        Ward, John

        Prior, Rt Hon James

        Warren, Kenneth

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Watson, John

        Rathbone, Tim

        Wells, Bowen

        Rees-Davies, W. R.

        Wheeler, John

        Renton, Tim

        Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Whitney, Raymond

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Ridley, Hon Nicholas

        Williams, D.(Montgomery)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Rifkind, Malcolm

        Wolfson, Mark

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Rossi, Hugh

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Rost, Peter

        Royle, Sir Anthony

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

        Mr. Carol Mather and

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Mr. Robert Boscawen.

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Question accordingly negatived.
        MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Five o'clock.

      Clause 1

        EXTENSION TO CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD
        Amendments made: No. 1, in page 2, line 7, leave out `of 22' and insert exceeding 21'.
        `No. 2, in page 2, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 4 and insert—
        '(4) Where a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter 1 of

        903
        Part I of the 1980 Act, the tenancy shall be treated for the purposes of Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (enfranchisement and extension of long leaseholds) as being a long tenancy notwithstanding that the lease is granted for a term not exceeding 21 years.'—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 2

        EXTENSION TO CASES WHERE LANDLORD IS A CHARITY
        Mr. W. Benyon: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 11, leave out from `arise' to end of line 13 and insert
        'unless the project is one to which the Secretary of State has given his approval after 1st July 1983, and which will qualify for grant under section 29 of the 1974 Act and is a project which includes—'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'under section 29 of the 1974 Act' and insert 'from public funds'.
        Mr. Benyon: I first declare my interest as a governor of the Peabody Trust, which is one of the largest charitable housing trusts situated entirely in London. It was set up some 120 years ago to provide decent housing for Londoners in need. It has been represented to me that the drafting of this amendment is deficient in certain respects. I do not believe that it is, but in any event the purport is clear. The date has been chosen because it is well ahead of the probable Royal Assent to the Bill and thus avoids the criticism made in Committee that any earlier date would produce uncertainty for schemes in the course of completion.
        The amendment is concerned with an important matter of principle. The donor to a charity, whether it be Government, institution or individual, accepts the object of that charity. The donor may impose conditions on his gift, but provided those conditions are met and the object of the charity upheld the gift is irredeemable.
        If the Government had said to charitable housing trusts in the past, "We are offering this HAG money on condition that you sell the houses that you produce," there would be no quarrel with this clause. Those conditions were not imposed, so the Government's actions under this clause are retrospective and unjust.
        Like other similar charities, we select our tenants on the basis of need. Thereafter, the tenant may prosper and be in a position to buy his or her own house. At the moment those tenants either stay in the existing house paying a full, fair rent or they move elsewhere.
        The Charity Commissioners were asked about this point and gave a decision on it in 1979 after exhaustive legal consultations. They said:
        "We agree that while it would be lawful for charitable housing associations to take the proper steps to evict occupiers who have ceased to be poor, it is not practicable to evict such people except in extreme circumstances. In our view property occupied by such people must be regarded as being held by the association temporarily as an investment."
        This matter was placed by the National Federation of Housing Associations before the Attorney-General, who represents the Crown as guardian of charities. On 9 March a reply was sent to the National Federation of Housing Associations by the Solicitor-General. It is rather unfortunate that neither of the Law Officers is here.
        Mr. Graham: They were not in Committee either.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. Benyon: The letter is rather long, but as it is so important I feel that I must put it on the record. The Solicitor-General said:
        "I share the views expressed by the Minister and as this part of the matter is so important would like to stress some of the salient points. My view is that the best test of 'necessitous circumstances' is whether the individual is 'going short'"
        This was discussed exhaustively in Committee. The Solicitor-General then quotes the case of Re Coulthurst. He continues that it
        "must be judged by reference to all the circumstances. It is a test which should be applied not only on initial letting but also in relation to continued occupation.
        This means that charities need to keep the circumstances of their tenants under review so as to verify that they remain in need and therefore proper beneficiaries of the charity. It does not mean that they would have to take action every time there is a change of circumstances for the better by an individual tenant, but it does mean that they will have to give some consideration to such changes and would be well advised to consult with their lawyers if and when any extensive changes with long term effects take place."
        At the best that is an uncertain direction compared with the definite opinion of the Charity Commissioners which I have just quoted and which was arrived at after exhaustive legal discussions. When lawyers disagree, wise men run for cover. In either case now, the property eventually returns to the trust which can then relet to other tenants who fall within the definition contained in the trust deed.
        It was implied in Committee that if we were doing our job properly in such trusts, there would be few applications to purchase because our tenants would not have the means to do so, but that misses the point. Although we are in the business of supplying houses to those in need, it is not our business to stop tenants prospering—in fact, quite the reverse: we welcome it. However, once that house is lost it can never be used again for the purpose for which it was intended.
        It is easy to say, as was said often in Committee, that only a proportion of the charitable housing stock will be affected. In our case it is about 2,000 dwellings out of 12,000. That in itself creates difficulties. It will not be easy to explain to a tenant that he does not have the right to buy whereas his neighbour in the same development does. That is quite apart from the administrative difficulties in what, in most cases, are composite developments.
        The real social problem will arise in the future. The trouble with housing is that it is a slow moving process. The full effect of the clause will be felt not tomorrow but in the years to come.
        In London at the moment, the private rented sector is dropping like a stone. The right to buy exists in nearly all local authority dwellings. Now, the remaining providers of low-cost rented housing in the capital city are under threat. Where will anyone live in future who cannot afford to buy?
        The Minister should remember the terrible example of Baron Haussman in Paris, who rebuilt that city under dictatorial powers in the 1860s. He created the wonderful boulevards and vistas that we all enjoy. However, in doing so he forced the poor of Paris to live further and further away, with grave economic and social disadvantages. It was the cause of all the troubles in 1871.
        Slowly and inexorably, the amount of rented housing for people of modest means in central London will diminish because the risk is not confined to the relatively

        905
        small number of dwellings to which the right to buy applies. The effect of the measure will be far more widespread. The people who run organisations in a wholly voluntary capacity will ask themselves—indeed, they are asking it now—what is the point of continuing? The Government do not appear to want them, relations with their tenants will be made ever more difficult and there are better uses for the charitable funds. That is the real threat.
        That point was put well by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) in the debate on 13 December. He said:
        "It is a salutary warning to any individual or body that craves independence never to take money from the Government."— [Official Report, 13 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 53.]
        I leave it to others more qualified than myself to decide whether charities are being deprived of their funds. That point was argued exhaustively in Committee, and the position is no clearer now.
        The argument in favour of sales is that the money from the sales of houses will be recycled to the Housing Corporation. That same argument was used for local authority housing. The fact remains that the Treasury collars the lot, apart from the discount for tenants. I simply cannot believe that the provision of housing will be improved—if only because of the enormous cost of buying a substitute dwelling—even if the money is recycled through the Housing Corporation. Frankly, I am concerned not with the financial implications, but with the principle. Government grants to voluntary bodies—for example, to a village hall committee or to a society dealing with drug addiction—are rightly irrevocable. There should be no difference for housing.
        This aspect of the Bill is a curious measure for a Tory Government to propose. The more that I read the Committee proceedings, the more confused I become. At one point on 14 December, the Minister appeared to be invoking that great Tory, Mr. Aneurin Bevan. I hope that I am not doing the Minister an injustice, but he appeared to say to the Opposition, "Do not accuse me of dunning the charities when you see what Mr. Bevan did to the hospitals in 1946." He then added a gloss by quoting Mr. Arthur Skeffington on the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I know that he was teasing—
        Mr. Stanley: I was simply drawing attention to the inconsistent attitude of the Opposition in trying to masquerade as the defenders of charity in comparison with their history and their present commitment on private schools.
        Mr. Benyon: The Minister has anticipated my next sentence. I knew that he was teasing. He was pointing out to the Opposition the inconsistencies in their attitude. But although we expect the Labour party to behave in that way, we do not expect the Conservative party to do so.
        The amendment makes the position clear. If any charitable housing association accepts a housing association grant in future, it will be under no illusion about the conditions attached to it. It will accept it or not on that basis. That point was well put in a letter to The Times on Monday from a director from my housing trust. He said:
        "The Bill overrides one of the fundamental principles of charity law, that assets may only be sold where this is in the interests of the charity and then at the best obtainable price. Its implications extend to all charities, not only to housing charities."
        906
        I hope that the House will accept the amendment because it will prevent a most dangerous precedent from being created.
        Mr. Reginald Freeson: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) because I cannot fault any of his words, other than when he was drawn into a rather lighthearted exchange about the different merits of the Labour and Conservative parties in their treatment of charitable organisations. I accept the spirit in which he made his point.
        When I was a Minister I introduced the Housing Act 1974, which, with the support of both sides of the House—[Interruption.] I trust that the Minister will take this argument seriously, and not turn it into a clowning act. [Laughter.] These matters are not for laughing and joking about. They are serious. I am not being pompous.
        Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, accused me of smiling during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). The only time that the right hon. Gentleman smiles is when he is speaking. He should develop his remarks rather than attack Conservative Members who are listening to his speech.
        Mr. Freeson: I regret that I gave way to such an offensive intervention. I am making a serious point of dispute and argument not only in the House, but among all the charitable organisations in Britain. Conservative Members should not be brass-necked about the matter. [Interruption.] I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) if he wishes to make a serious intervention. If he does not, I shall continue with my remarks.
        The Housing Act 1974, with the support of both sides of the House, provided the financial base for housing associations to build new homes and improve old houses in our crumbling inner cities on a scale never known before. It helped them to deal with the serious shortage of rented accommodation and the legacy of property in serious disrepair, especially—but not solely—in the inner city areas.
        Housing associations were already active in those areas. In London, in addition to the Peabody Trust mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham, the Notting Hill Housing Trust was making inroads into some of the serious social problems in the neglected parts of the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It tackled the physical problems of decay. In Paddington, and in my area of Willesden, the Paddington Churches Housing Association was displacing the rottenness of the former Rachman empire and replacing it with decent homes at fair rents.
        The Brent People's Housing Association was active in my area, and has since become one of the most dynamic associations in Britain. In Liverpool, the Merseyside Improved Houses Association was working in the inner city areas. In Yorkshire, the North British Housing Association was active, and is now also a dynamic housing association.
        I have mentioned the work of only five charitable housing associations, but hundreds of others were working in some of the worst areas in towns and cities throughout Britain. Their contribution was inevitably limited because they were working under an inadequate financial system.

        907
        Charitable associations such as those I have mentioned, particularly the earlier ones, had to balance their books by raising their own money. For example, Notting Hill Housing Trust had a number of charity shops in London. The church-based housing associations received some support from the British Council of Churches. Many others received valuable support from voluntary welfare bodies associated with the housing associations themselves and, in more recent years, from organisations such as Shelter and the Housing Societies Charitable Trust. Others were helped—the help was patchily distributed across the country—by local councils such as my own in Willesden, now Brent. Some subsidy and grant was available for the improvement and conversion of old properties under the 1967 Act. Those forms of assistance were all useful, but they were inadequate.
        6 pm
        By 1974 it was clear to the House and to the country that more action and support were urgently needed. The Labour Government were supported by both sides of the House—indeed, we inherited certain measures which were in draft when the 1974 election took place—in their desire to back the voluntary commitment and, by giving it adequate financial support, to encourage it to become a genuine alternative to—not a replacement of—the existing choice between owner-occupation, council housing and the declining private sector. For years, the housing association movement had been described as the third arm in housing. I regarded that description as rhetorical because in those years the housing associations never provided more, at the most, than 9,000 to 11,000 dwellings a year, either by new build or by purchase and conversion.
        As the Minister at that time, with the support of the House and of elected local government, I wanted to make the third arm a reality. Many in the housing association movement feared that by accepting Government grants on the scale proposed they would lose their independence. I speak with personal knowledge of the discussions and meetings because I was involved with representatives from all areas of the housing association movement. People were worried that if the associations took the money proposed in the 1974 legislation they would become an appendage of central Government, ordered to carry out its policy and follow its dictates. They feared that the movement would become a Government corporation. That language was actually used in some quarters.
        It cost me, as Minister, some time and a great deal of effort to convince those who were so worried that their fear was unfounded, that the Government and Parliament were seeking partnership and persuasion on policy towards deprived areas and that I was a strong believer in a pluralist approach to housing, not just pragmatically but in principle. I had to persuade them that the Government believed that associations could be important in improving democratic control and innovation in housing, that there were no strings attached to the acceptance of housing association grant and that the Government wished not to take over but to enable housing associations to improve conditions for millions of people living in rotten housing and rotten physical environments. I sought to persuade them that the grants were given in good faith because the Government genuinely wanted a more vigorous attack on
        908
        some of the worst housing problems, with housing associations complementing the work of local authorities and being joined later, I hoped, by others in the building industry and the financial institutions.
        The eventual acceptance of those assurances is now a matter of history and great things came out of it. The new system allowed housing associations to provide not 11,000 but 40,000 homes a year—good homes to rent—by the time I left office. If the financial resources had been made available, the total could have continued to rise to 70,000 dwellings per year. That is not guesswork. I speak advisedly when I say that a sevenfold increase could have been achieved, so effectively had the movement been able to organise itself on the basis of the new financial system under the 1974 Act.
        Since then, housing associations have provided nearly a third of a million rented homes, most of them in or near the stress areas of our inner cities but many, too, in rural areas where the lack of rented accommodation has led to the decline of communities, as young people have drifted away in search of homes.
        Back in 1974 many of the housing associations feared that the Labour Government would impose more controls and bureaucracy on the housing association movement as a consequence of giving grants and thus stifle the movement's initiative. It is ironic to find that, all these years later, more controls, bureaucracy and interference affecting both local authorities and housing associations have been introduced by the Conservative Government than ever there were under the Labour Government. It is the Conservatives who think of the housing associations as arms of the state. Indeed, that expression has even been used to me by people working in the Government's policy unit.
        No one envisaged in 1974 that a future Conservative Government would use the fact that housing associations had accepted grants as a pretext to compel them to sell homes when it was very much against their interest and their housing judgment to do so. Furthermore, they will be increasingly required to repay the very grants that are the Government's justification for requiring them to sell their houses because public money has been placed in them.
        Governments change, and so do policies, but Parliament needs to keep faith with people. When that faith is broken, not only are the Government of the day shamed but faith in parliamentary democracy is weakened, and one does not need to stress the dangers of that in these times. Of course, one Government or Parliament cannot fetter the action of another. Commitments entered into by one Administration are not always honoured by the next, but agreements freely struck and honourably carried out by both sides should be respected, especially when Parliament is one of the parties involved.
        Mr. John Heddle: I am sure that the House is listening with great interest to the views that we know are sincerely held by the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), but will he address himself to the role of the charitable housing associations? Does he agree that they are principally in business to provide homes to rent for the poorer sections of the community, the disadvantaged and those who genuinely need the right to rent? Does he further agree that the obligation to sell to those able to buy suggests that within the portfolio of the majority of charitable housing associations there are

        909
        tenants who should not qualify to remain in those properties and who by remaining there may deprive other more deserving people of the right to rent?
        Mr. Freeson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber when this point was, to some extent, discussed by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, but it was largely answered by him. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the record. Even if his latter point was right, it is not for Parliament or for Government to interfere with the detailed management affairs of charitable housing associations. If there is to be a challenge about their conduct as charitable organisations, proper procedures exist, which do not lie in this type of legislation. Such matters can be taken to court or to the Charity Commissioners, as happened in a case referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Buckingham.
        With regard to the general policy of associations, successive Governments in co-operation, rightly, with local authorities have sought to widen their roles, particularly but not solely in the inner city areas. Therefore, it cannot be their role simply to put people into properties becuase they come to them at the lowest end of the housing market. By agreement across both sides of the House under the 1974 Act and, indeed, earlier, their role is wider—to contribute to the removal of decay and obsolescence in our inner city areas and elsewhere. Even if the two points made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) were accepted, they are in no way an answer to my point and to the points of the hon. Member for Buckingham.
        When charitable housing associations accepted the grant system and individual grants from 1974 onwards, there was no question of that giving Government a right to take their assets from them. What has happened since is water under the bridge. I do not agree with the Government if they wish as from now to attach compulsory sales conditions to the acceptance of grants, but they are entitled with a parliamentary majority to seek to do so and it will be for housing associations then to decide whether they will accept grants involving such conditions—a decision that will be freely arrived at or rejected by them. That is acceptable in principle even if I were to disagree with the policy objective, about which I am not prepared to argue today. I did so generally on Second Reading. In such circumstances, Governments would be right in principle, even if I did not agree with the policy, to pursue their intentions in the Bill from now onwards, but not to pursue it in respect of the thousands of properties that have been built under the grant system as originally intended and accepted by both Governments and housing associations.
        Mr. Chapman: I am following closely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I made a point in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman presumably supported about the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Bill did not say "leaseholds entered into from now on" but referred to leaseholds that were already made. Surely that is the same principle. Therefore, the Minister has not taken an unprincipled point of view in presenting the Bill.
        Mr. Freeson: When charitable associations—it could be any other charitable organisation—are being offered central or local government support or, indeed, any financial support, it is unprincipled if, subsequently, conditions are attached to the receipt of the grant. We are
        910
        not discussing the Leasehold Reform Act. That is a false analogy. I read the proceedings from Committee and I do not accept that that is a fair analogy. [Interruption.] I hope that the housing association representatives around the country will observe the Minister's constant reaction on this matter. The Minister thinks that this is a big joke.
        Mr. Neil Thorne rose—
        Mr. Freeson: I can see the Minister. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) does not have that pleasure.
        Mr. Thorne: There is a world of difference between the Minister's reaction to what the right hon. Member for Brent, East is saying and what the Minister actually feels. He does not have to feel amusement about charities just because he happens to find amusing the way the right hon. Member for Brent, East expresses himself. That is a different matter entirely.
        6.15 pm
        Mr. Freeson: I will not bother with that intervention. What the Government are doing with regard to charitable organisations is wrong. I believe that when they consider it quietly away from the Chamber and Committee, they, too, will believe it to be wrong. Conservative Members may have similar thoughts. What is wrong about the Bill is that the Government are not entitled to rewrite history by attaching conditions that were never there in the first place. Governments and Parliaments should always be wary of retrospective legislation. It may be necessary sometimes—for example, when closing a loophole that destroys a legislative intention—but when there has been no attempt to evade the law or to profit improperly by it, retrospective action is wrong.
        It is even more reprehensible in the present case because the organisations involved are charities, many of which stand to lose substantial assets if the Bill is enacted in its present form. We should be clear about what is being proposed, because some small charities could go out of business entirely as a result of clause 2. Under the right to buy the tenant is entitled to claim a discount of between one third and one half of the market value of the property that he or she occupies. The discount comes out of the increasing value of the property over the original cost of provision. Owner-occupiers and property companies quite rightly expect to profit from this appreciation in value. They regard it as part of their assets and no one seeks to deny it to them, but the Government seem to be denying the same consideration to charities by saying that the Government have a right to dispose of their assets. It does not rest there. When a housing charity is compelled to sell because of the right to buy, a mechanism is triggered by which the Government will recover the original housing association grant.
        This will be done under a provision of the Housing Act 1974, which I introduced to prevent possible abuse by housing associations selling dwellings that were provided for rent. It enabled the Secretary of State to recover grant paid on any building that ceased to be used for the purpose for which it was intended—that is, providing a home for rent. It is a perversion of the intention of the provision to compel the associations to sell the property and then to say that, because they have sold the property, the grant must be recovered. There was never any intention to use the provision in the 1974 Act in that way. That, too, is, in my opinion, a breach of faith.

        911
        When the discount has been paid, the grant recovered and the mortgage redeemed, the charity concerned will in most instances have no capital receipt for the sale of the property. It has been argued that the sale of council houses gives local authorities capital receipts, which they can then invest in providing new homes. There are disputes about that but that will not apply to charities because it is the Exchequer that will enjoy the capital receipts and the charity will be left with next to nothing.
        It is not good enough to say that there will be an addition made to the Housing Corporation's capital allocation to make this good. That is not an answer. I shall give two examples of how the provisions would work in practice. The Egerton Housing Association is a small charity that was formed by members of the parish council in a village near Ashford, Kent. It owns six houses. These properties were provided for young married couples working in the area. The provision was made because there was no other rented accommodation in the village. The association has served a useful purpose over the years by offering a first home to young couples, most of whom would move on after a few years when their finances enabled them to buy the larger homes that they would need in which to raise their families.
        Even before the Bill is on the statute book, four of the six tenants have claimed the right to buy. It is likely that the other two will do so when the Bill is passed. The charity estimates that after giving the discount and repaying the grant and mortgage it will be left with only sufficient funds to pay the legal expenses of winding-up.
        The association is run entirely by volunteers, and they are now feeling bitter about having spent so much time and energy over the years only to see their charity go out of existence as a result of an apparent whim, as they see it, of Government. Egerton is a small village that will shortly have no rented housing. I am sure that this will happen in a number of other rural areas where there is deprivation. There will be a similar though less disastrous effect in many city areas.
        I shall present the House with another example. I hope that it will be accepted that these are not odd examples that do not repeat themselves elsewhere. I believe that they will repeat themselves throughout the country. The WPHT Housing Association is involved in a scheme with which I was closely concerned as a Minister some years ago. It operates in what is known as the Denbigh triangle area, in Pimlico, London. It became involved because of what was going on in the property market in that area in the early to middle 1970s. That was what is loosely called gentrification. There were other developments that were even worse from the point of view of tenants in the district.
        The association was formed following publication of the Milner Holland report on the condition of rented housing in London. Sir Milner Holland and another member of his committee were founder members of the association. It has provided 350 flats for families and single people in the area. Its specific aim was to keep the local community intact by ensuring that rented accommodation continued to be available in an area where, increasingly, rented property was being bought up and sold out of rented use.
        The triangle is a conservation area and the association's work has played a large part in restoring it to its former elegance. If clause 2 is allowed to stand as drafted, its
        912
        rented accommodation is likely to be sold into owner-occupation within a very short time—the House will be aware of the pressures of the market in that part of London—and there will again be a grave shortage of rented accommodation in the area. Sir Milner Holland and his colleagues might well wonder whether their time was well spent after all.
        I spoke earlier about the Government breaking faith with the voluntary housing movement. I have in mind especially the 26,000 people—that is the Housing Corporation's estimate—who give freely of their time and effort to manage housing associations. By "freely" I mean generously and without pay. Without them charitable housing associations could not function and the third force in housing would cease to exist. I am not arguing that the Bill will cause the voluntary housing movement to come to an end. I hope and believe that that will not happen. Many of us inside the House and many others outside will ensure that it does not die. That is because we and they are committed to it. However, many of the 26,000 will not continue to give their time to act as the Government's unpaid estate agents. Those who remain on the committees will nurse a sense of betrayal. In many instances they are nursing that sense already. They will be much less willing to take at face value what any Government say in future. It is a poor reward for voluntary service. It is a poor response to the needs of the deprived in our inner city areas and areas of rural poverty.
        The crisis that is looming in London and possibly in other areas is that of disrepair and a shortage of rented accommodation in inner city areas. In the borough in my constituency there are about 20,000 substandard dwellings requiring more action by the local authority and housing associations. There is underuse of habitable accommodation. There are old dwellings that could be converted if the resources and the effort were made available.
        In the borough in my constituency there will be nearly 500 homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation tonight because neither housing associations nor the local council have the accommodation to house them. Many of these families are likely to be in rundown bed and breakfast hotels for upwards of a year. That is likely on the basis of cases with which I am now dealing. Do not tell me that I am being pompous when I complain about the removal of rented accommodation from the housing association market. Tell the people in the bed and breakfast places who is being pompous or brass-necked when the Government are insisting on the loss of rented accommodation at reasonable rents in such areas. We must provide more rented accommodation, not less, but the Bill seeks to concentrate on reducing the size of the rented stock in the very areas in which we need to increase it.
        I ask the Government to consider the arguments that have been advanced on Second Reading, in Committee and tonight and to think again. If they are not prepared to do so, let there be a majority in the other place to put the Government in their place on this issue. Let us at least remove the retrospective elements in the Bill. At the very least there should be no retrospective action. Let us at least save the existing rented accommodation, even if the Government insist on a compulsory sales policy for future dwellings. In justice and fairness, I ask Conservative Members, whatever their differences with us may be, individually or collectively, not to allow the proposed retrospective action to take place, to the harm of those who need the sort of accommodation to which I have referred.
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Neil Thorne: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment, especially as my amendment, No. 62, is coupled with it. My amendment seeks to widen the powers that the Government seek to provide, because I believe that the Government's proposals do not go far enough. I have a non-financial interest to declare in two or three housing associations, including the Greater London secondary housing association, with which I am delighted to be associated.
        I listened with care and sympathy to the persuasive arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). I also listened with great attention and respect to the speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) who has considerable experience and knowledge in housing. However, I do not agree with him in several respects. I do not agree that charities should be in the business of letting accommodation. That is not a responsibility of charities. If a charity happens to have responsibility for housing as part of its duties, so be it, but I do not think it should be primarily in that business.
        Charities should have aims and those aims should be clear. They should try to help various groups of people. In certain circumstances they try to help the aged and infirm. As I understand it, those groups will not be affected by the Government's proposal. It is essential that accommodation should be kept available for them.
        Some housing associations which are either charities or have charitable status have moved into the business of general housing. I cannot see why people who have helped housing associations take on this role and who have had the pleasure of seeing people without adequate housing being housed properly with Government aid should object to those people taking the further step of becoming owner-occupiers in their own right. I should have thought that a charitable housing association would have welcomed the opportunity that the proposal gives to those people whom it wishes to help.
        I have had the pleasure of assisting certain co-ownership housing societies and associations. Without any profit motive, large groups of people have offered their services to help others who do not have adequate accommodation to get on the first rung of the property-owning ladder. I do not believe that charities will withdraw from that work. I am a member of the Greater London secondary housing association, which has adapted its role specifically to assist and advise people who set out to accommodate themselves adequately and help them in the first years of running such an enterprise.
        We all have great affection for charities. This is something of a British tradition. However, all charities are not necessarily in the same group. The Attorney-General is taking issue with the Charity Commissioners about certain charities because Members on both sides of the House do not believe that they should be classified as charities, and that is not an isolated case.
        I must take some responsibility for the introduction of the Government's proposals because one of my Adjournment debates drew the Minister's attention to the plight of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Reid of 135 Thorold road, Ilford, who wished to buy their house but were unable to do so. This, I believe, helped to spark off the proposals, which I am pleased the Minister has introduced. For Mr. and Mrs. Reid, unfortunately, the proposal does not go far enough.
        914
        Mr. and Mrs. Reid were on the Greater London council housing waiting list in 1971. They were offered accommodation by Trinity Housing Association Ltd. as an alternative to council accommodation. They accepted in good faith what they were offered, believing that it was financed from public resources, which it was. Subsequently, however, they were surprised to learn, from an article in the Ilford Recorder of 8 September 1977:
        "Government officials are probing a Redbridge-based housing association following concern over the group's managment.
        The inquiry is into the non-profit-making Trinity Housing Association who find accommodation for the homeless.
        It is being carried out by the Government's Housing Corporation who supervise and finance all similar organisations.
        The association, formed seven years ago by director Mr. Jim Alexander, control 553 homes and have an annual turn-over of two million pounds.
        In a statement issued this week, the Housing Corporation said: 'Mr. Alexander has been threatened with suspension from the Housing Corporation under the terms of the 1974 Housing Act, section 19, which governs housing associations.
        'This gives the corporation the power to conduct inquiries into the management of associations.
        'An inquiry is being conducted at this moment following concern being expressed at the management of the Trinity Housing Association.
        'Whatever happens as a result of the inquiry will not affect the security of tenure of the residents placed by Trinity.'
        The Act also gives the corporation the right to suspend any committee member or staff member of a housing association if the corporation conclude there has been misconduct of mismanagement."
        That describes what happened in that case. This is a society which was established under the charitable housing rules. It would come within the Minister's proposal. My only regret is that the proposal does not apply to all funds that have been made available. In that case the resources were provided by the Greater London council and the local London borough council. In my view, there is no difference between that and funds provided by central Government. So there is no reason why my constituents and people in similar circumstances should not be given the opportunity to own their property on exactly the same basis as a council tenant. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will take this into account and see what he can do to help.
        Mr. Stephen Ross: I start by declaring an interest as a founder member of the Isle of Wight housing association, although I am not active in its management today. Not for the first time I find myself wanting to support the amendment proposed so ably by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). I spoke on Second Reading and I do not wish to go over the ground again.
        Mr. Graham: A very good speech it was.
        Mr. Ross: Thank you very much.
        As I have said, I was associated with the formation of a charitable housing association which now owns and manages over 300 properties in my constituency.
        The hon. Member for Buckingham quoted from a letter which appeared recently in The Times from the manager of the Peabody Trust. I wish to go back to The Times of 9 December last and quote an extract from a letter from Bishop Ellison and others because it encapsulates what I should like to say. According to the letter, the proposal to give the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations who have been housed with the aid of housing association grants since 1974

        915
        "would confer a benefit on a fortunate tenant of today, at the expense of tomorrow's homeless and disadvantaged. It cuts across the obligations and responsibilities which charities have in perpetuity. It undermines the work of those who have contributed many years of personal and voluntary service to providing homes to rent for those with lower incomes."
        The housing association in my constituency was set up in 1973 because we were concerned that young people in particular, but also all age groups, were being priced out of the market. There was no hope in hell of them getting a home to rent or to buy at a reasonable price. The same applies today.
        Incidentally, the Government are completely inconsistent. The Minister should have a word with the Home Office because its attitude to surplus prison officer housing is not nearly so generous as that of the Department of the Environment. When there is surplus prison officer housing on the island, the Home Office will not make it available to local authorities which are in great trouble with long waiting lists. Also, when the Home Office is prepared to sell off houses to tenants, there is no discount. The prices are far above sitting tenant prices. I have just discovered in a roundabout way today that the Home Office might assist by giving an interest-free loan of £3,000; that has not been made public yet.
        Housing in London is in crisis and it will get worse. I do not believe that the Government recognise what is happening in Kensington and Westminster where many hon. Members live. Too often, blocks of flats have been sold off to the tenants on long leases. The tenants have been enticed to buy at attractive prices. One does not know who the hell the owner is. Often, it is a faceless landlord with a company registered in the Channel Islands. If one turns down an offer to purchase, one receives every two years a hugely increased rent demand. In the end, many people conclude that this is a hopeless way to proceed, that they cannot go on arguing before the rent officer and that they will purchase.
        As soon as one purchases the property, one receives a dramatically increased demand for services. On an ordinary one-bedroomed flat, the charge for services can amount to £1,000 a year. It takes months if not years to extract statistics from inefficient managing agents. I speak as a chartered surveyor. I am ashamed of many of the managing agents of London blocks of flats. It is appalling trying to get details from them. One never succeeds in arranging a proper meeting of long leaseholders who are entitled to hold such meetings in order to have facts and figures given to them. So it goes on. One suddenly finds that there are plans to decorate the outside of the flat and that £80,000 is required from the tenants. This cannot be allowed to continue.
        Some people with whom I share a block of flats are driven to tears and great distress. There is no way that they can continue to meet these enormous demands if the Government intend to diminish, or to wipe out completely, the supply of charitable housing to let in the metropolis. The lives of those people will become more complicated and worrisome. That is not the right way to proceed. The matter cannot be left to the House of Lords. I believe that the House of Lords at the moment tends to be the conscience of the nation. So rigid are the party divisions in this place that, however strong the argument from the Opposition Benches—for instance, on school transport—it is the Duke of Norfolk who has to change the
        916
        Government's mind. It is possible that the bishops will have a go. I hope to God they do. I wish them the best of luck.
        Why should this be necessary? Why is the hon. Member for Buckingham apparently one of the few supporters on the Conservative Benches of what is proposed? It was the same situation three or four years ago. Most Government Members know that they do not like the provisions in the Bill. I find it immoral. It should not be left to the other place to put the matter right. I hope that there are Conservative Members who will have the guts to vote with the hon. Member for Buckingham. I applaud the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment.
        Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think it appropriate if I do not follow directly the arguments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I should, however, like to take up some remarks of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). Before referring to his notes and giving a good and lengthy background to housing association grants, the right hon. Gentleman accused me of clowning around in Standing Committee. I regard that as an unworthy assertion. The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to consider withdrawing it, privately if not in public. If he examines the issues that I have raised in Committee he will find, I suspect, that almost every one is an issue with which he would agree. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken for over half an hour on charitable housing associations. I intend to speak for about seven minutes. If he wishes to intervene, I shall willingly give way.
        Mr. Freeson: I use my phrases carefully. They are not normally put in such terms. However the hon. Gentleman's behaviour even while his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) was speaking and his behaviour in Committee, as I read the record, led me to the conclusion that I made. I stand by it.
        Mr. Bottomley: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Standing Committee debates. If he can raise any example of what he regards as clowning on my part and feels he can substantiate it, I suggest that he mentions it in public rather than make unsubstantiated allegations in the way that he did both to me and to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench.
        6.45 pm
        I wish to discuss whether it is appropriate for tenants of charitable housing associations to be given the right to buy. It seems to me that some information is missing and that some points have not been made. No one can accuse me of supporting whatever the Government favour. That is not my history or my style. I approach this issue with a fairly open mind. I have listened to the debate. I have read many of the submissions by charitable housing associations. I conclude that what the Government propose is reasonable and should be supported.
        One large housing association stated that it had bought 5,000 homes at roughly 50 per cent. of empty value with tenants in them. If housing associations can buy at 50 per cent. discount, it is reasonable that they should sell at 50 per cent. discount. Some argue that people involved as volunteers in charitable housing associations have shown that they are willing to provide voluntary direction to shared ownership and opportunities for tenants to buy. No question of principle arises when those volunteers provide the same sort of home to tenants but decide beforehand to

        917
        allocate some to tenants who will be able to buy part or all of the property and some to others who will not be able to buy. It has not been proved that those involved in voluntary housing are opposed to the right to buy. By their own admission, many are willing to become involved in other provisions.
        Mr. Freeson: There is surely a world of difference between an organisation that provides housing with a view to negotiating voluntarily different tenure arrangements with its tenants and the position of that organisation when it is compelled to do what it judges to be wrong in terms of housing policy, reinforced by a compulsion put upon it to deal with houses provided before the Bill in the same way.
        Mr. Bottomley: That is a valid question, with which I wish to deal. Compulsion is a subsidiary issue. There is, I believe, common agreement that the same people are involved in providing two different sorts of prospective tenure. All hon. Members know that family circumstances change. All of us know that people helped by charitable housing associations may find that their circumstances continue as they were when they first became tenants. The decision to buy privately or to take up the right-to-buy option will therefore not arise. Most estimates that I have seen show that relatively few tenants of housing associations would be able to take up the right-to-buy option in any event. However, hon. Members also know that some people at the bottom of the housing pile find that their circumstances change. Some decide to buy privately. Others will have the opportunity to buy at a discount. We are therefore extending help to those in the middle of the housing association tenant spectrum.
        It is also known that many people who believed that they would have the opportunity to enter into shared ownership and to buy through the new schemes of tenure find that their circumstances change. They find that they need to remain tenants for a long time, if not for ever. I do not believe that hon. Members or those involved in the management of housing associations are in a position to say that family A will at some stage be able to buy and that family B will not be able to buy. However, unless we provide a general right to buy, we are in trouble. We are trying to make a paternalistic and elitist forecast that we are not in a position to make.
        There is the question of stocks and flows. The right hon. Member for Brent, East did not talk about the Housing Corporation funds available this year. I have given advice to housing associations and to the federation. They would have been far wiser to pay attention to the evidence of one housing association of which I made inquiries and which said that with new housing association grants it could add about 20 per cent. a year to its stock of homes. When I asked what proportion of homes would be either "sterilised"—people staying on who would not otherwise do so—or bought by tenants and whether it would amount to 20 per cent., I was told that the figure would be much lower.
        If, therefore, there is an opportunity to add 20 per cent. a year to the stock of homes managed by a housing association and if it is likely to lose perhaps 5 per cent. of what it has created over the last eight years, it seems to me that from the point of view of the aims of the housing association, providing homes for those who would not otherwise have them, what the Government propose is a good deal.
        918
        What the National Federation of Housing Associations should have done was tell the Government that it could see what the Government were trying to achieve, that it would leave anomalies—for example, the pre- and post-1974 houses where some charitable money was involved—but that it should be possible to come to an agreement with the Government for long-term, increased funding for housing associations so that they would be left with more homes to let, so that more people, finding their circumstances changed, would be able to buy and so that a long-term settlement could be achieved.
        It has not happened. I hope it will. I hope that the housing associations will be more positive and constructive. They would be very wise to consider selling pre-1974 homes even though tenants will not have the right to buy, because unless they do that they will face the most invidious choices. It is possible to reach common ground so that the Government achieve what they want as well as the housing associations being enabled to go on doing their very valuable work. All-out opposition is wrong because there is only one logical consequence with a Government who believe that tenants should be able to get homes when they need them and to buy when they want. The Government would bring to an end HAG. There would be no more housing corporation grants and loans because they would be provided only to local authorities where the right to buy was established. That would be a retrograde step for housing associations. The increase in their supply of homes since 1974 has been invaluable. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing that forward. I wish that he would rest on his laurels there and not oppose the sensible measures in this Bill.
        Mr. Robert Parry: In view of the time, I will be very brief. I realise that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this debate and that the Front Bench will begin winding-up at half-past seven. I am opposed to this Bill if it goes through unamended. Liverpool is the only city in the United Kingdom controlled by the Liberals in coalition with the Tories. The present critical housing situation in Liverpool will be further aggravated if this Bill becomes law. In the past few years not one unit of accommodation has been built by the local authority for rent. This is an absolute disgrace, bearing in mind the major problems of Liverpool, particularly from the point of view of people or the housing list and on the transfer list, especially the elderly, sick and disabled, who badly need transfers arid who, under the present system and administration, are not given them.
        It is obvious that this is the result of deliberate, doctrinaire Liberal policy and attitudes towards council tenants and the whole principle of council house building. Several years ago, Liverpool had one of the lowest rent levels in the country. Now, under Liberalism, we are top of the league, like our football team. The increase in rents passed by Liberal and Tory councillors in coalition gives an indication of their attitude. For example, in 1979 the average rent of a one-bedroomed flat, excluding rates and water rate, was £6·70; in April 1982 it was £15·13. The rent of a three-bedroomed house was £8·49 in 1979 and £21·51 in 1982. The rent of a three-bedroomed flat in 1979 was £8·49 and in 1982 was £18·12. These are only average figures. I have spent most of my life in a council flat and when I moved out of my three-bedroomed multi-storey flat a few weeks ago I was paying rent of nearly £30 a week.

        919
        Great play was made of the fact that I lived in a council flat by the present leader of the Liverpool city council, Sir Trefor Jones, who lives in a salubrious area of Liverpool in a house worth £80,000 or £90,000. He was also supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton).
        The sale of council homes is depleting the best of our stock. All the best houses in Liverpool are being sold. It is interesting to note that over the past three years only one flat in the whole of Liverpool has been sold. These sales are affecting the people who want to get out of the pre-war tenement flats and into decent accommodation. I am concerned about the old, the handicapped and the sick. I received a request from a very old lady whom I have known for most of my life, Mrs. Murphy, 83 years of age, who has recently been discharged from hospital after a serious illness. She is living on the fifth floor of a pre-war tenement block. Her son has been very ill. I approached the housing department to see whether this poor lady could be removed from the tenement and given a decent house or flat but was told that under the present system there is no chance and that she must stay where she is.
        I am certain that there are people living in high-rise flats whose lives could be shortened or who are at risk because they are not rehoused, even though they have been given priority by the medical officer of health.
        It is a great pity that the people of Darlington who live in rented accommodation or who are on housing waiting lists are not aware of the policies of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party. I am quite certain that when they vote tomorrow the SDP/Liberal alliance will be bottom of the list.
        Mr. Andrew Bowden: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has done an important service in moving the amendment. I want to concentrate my comments on the smaller charitable housing associations. I understand that there are 221 housing associations which provide special needs accommodation. Of that 221, 150 are charitable and 71 are non-charitable. Of the 221, 70 have fewer than 100 units and more than half of the 70 are operating exclusively in the area of special needs. Some of them are exempt from the right to buy under this Bill. There is a strong case for exempting this group completely.
        Small associations often rely solely on voluntary efforts. I have no doubt that if this Bill were to be implemented exactly as it stands this voluntary effort could be seriously affected. Small associations are vulnerable financially and have very few professional administrative resources. Administrative work plays a part in all these associations and if they are going to be involved in what will often be very complex matters concerning the sale of various properties within the associations it will be time-consuming and expensive and will divert them from their true aim of providing accommodation to meet very special needs and requirements. Meeting some of those needs and requirements would help those recovering from alcoholism, drug problems and mental illnesses.
        7 pm
        Another aspect that I hope the Minister will consider carefully is that of donations. The British are a generous people. In towns such as Brighton—the Brighton housing trust is a typical example—substantial donations are made
        920
        by people who know that they are giving help to sections of the community that need special assistance, generosity and compassion in respect of the problems that they face. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will have a serious effect on those who may be prepared to continue making generous donations to charitable housing associations.
        The House may ask why I chose the figure of 100, and what will happen to the association that has slightly more than 100 dwellings. That can easily be sorted out. If the figure fluctuates, such a suggestion would operate automatically from the date that the Bill became an Act—in other words, it could then be established whether the association had fewer than 100 or more than 100 dwellings. There must be a cut-off point, which to some extent must be arbitrary.
        Many of the associations about which I am talking will never exceed the limit of 100. Were they to do so, they would not be able to fulfil the role that they are playing so effectively at present. Those that did exceed the limit would inevitably become more financially stable and viable.
        I hope that the Minister will look closely at this area of charitable housing trusts. If he will concede the spirit of my comments, I shall be delighted to leave it to him to arrange for the appropriate amendment to be moved in another place. The arguments that have been presented today to help this group of charitable housing trusts are based on common sense and justice, not only in respect of those who benefit from such associations, but in respect of those who give so generously of their time and money.
        Mr. Cartwright: In his skilful moving of the amendment, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) rightly drew attention to the extraordinary situation in which the Conservative party—traditionally the party that has championed charitable activities against state provision—should in this part of the Bill be seeking to undermine the position of charitable housing associations. That is indeed strange.
        All of us who served on the Committee were left in no doubt at all about the attitude of the associations. We were deluged with letters from housing associations all over the country, clearly stating the disincentive effect of this part of the Bill.
        I quote briefly from the Salvation Army housing association. This was typical of the reaction that we received. The chairman of that association wrote:
        "My Association is actively considering branching out to provide, for example, permanent housing for resettled hostel residents and for poorer young couples entering their first married homes."
        All of us would regard that as a worthy objective. The letter continued:
        "The Housing and Building Control Bill as presently drafted will almost certainly bring to an end these plans for new initiatives in our future work."
        The chairman points out that hon. Members
        "should be aware of this discouraging effect of the Bill".
        He summed up:
        "We do not see it as our function to provide homes for sale at discount prices."
        That was the reaction of many charitable housing associations.
        It is fair to say, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, that many housing associations have responded to the Government's wish to see them play a role in developing shared ownership,

        921
        building for sale and so on. Many have set up sister associations to fulfil that part of the Government's housing policy. In meeting that part of the Government's objective, they thought that as a quid pro quo they would be left in peace to pursue their charitable objectives of providing housing for those in most need. They are angry and discouraged to find that that is not the case.
        There is tremendous agreement among all parties in the House that there should be more choice in housing, particularly in rented housing. The polarisation between owner-occupation and council renting is not encouraging for housing in this country. The housing associations in general, and the charitable housing associations in particular, can play an important part in providing low-cost rented housing as an alternative to local authority housing schemes.
        In central London, the charitable activities about which we are talking often provide islands of reasonable low-cost rental in a sea of expensive housing. That is vital, not just in housing terms but in terms of the running of the city. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), I represent what is virtually the London new town of Thamesmead. I see the harm that is done when people are taken from the centre of our city, carted out to the edges and put in housing that is miles away from their jobs. If we want essential services carried out in the centre of the city, we must provide low-cost housing to enable people to live near the essential jobs that they do.
        I pay tribute to a number of charitable housing associations which over the years have provided just that sort of low-cost housing. However, they will now find that tenants, if they can afford to buy at generous discounts, will seek the capital gain that such a purchase will offer them.
        The major case for extending the right to buy—it was fairly made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West—is that it provides fairness among tenants. But that objective is not met in the Bill, because charitable housing association tenants whose homes were not built with housing association grants do not get the right to buy. Consequently, there could well be tenants living virtually side by side, some having the right to buy and the others not. Anomalies will still exist if the Bill is enacted as currently drafted.
        The most powerful argument against the clause as it now stands is contained in the amendment. I well understand the right of Government to say, "We have put Government money into a particular project and we have the right to apply strings." However, I do not accept that a Government have the right years later to say, "You accepted our money on a perfectly open, free and fair basis all those years ago, we have now decided retrospectively that we will apply strings to the help that you accepted freely." That point is brought out clearly in the letter that we all received from the Salvation Army housing association, which asked:
        "What conditions will be attached tomorrow to assistance received in good faith from government today?".
        That is the most important part of this argument. That is why I welcome the amendment so much, and why I shall recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support it in the Lobby.
        Mr. Chapman: I note the wish of the House for brief contributions to this important debate on the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon).
        At the outset, I feel impelled to make two personal observations. First, I pay tribute here and now to the significant contribution to the Committee debates made by all hon. Members who served on that Committee, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I shall shortly return to a telling point that he made.
        Secondly, it is a little unfair of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to label most Conservative Back Benchers as acting as lobby fodder on this issue in support of the Government. It is precisely because distinguished people such as Bishop Ellison have expressed disquiet about what the Government are doing, and because we have received so much correspondence from chairmen and other people who are involved with the charitable housing associations, that I for one have agonised over the matter before deciding to support the Government.
        Mr. Stephen Ross: If, as I hope, the bishops and, say, some Tory peers in the other place throw out the clause, support the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), and change the clause as drafted, will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept that decision, or will he want it to be restored to its original position when it comes back to this House? That has happened time after time. The latest example is the Water Bill and the reference to the ombudsman. That has now been accepted by the Government in the other place, although it was resisted throughout in this House.
        Mr. Chapman: With respect, I can only come to my own conclusion, and my conclusion is to support the Government, on balance, on this clause. If bishops in the other place tend not to support the Government, apart from making the polemic remark that it proves that it is not necessarily the Conservatives who have a majority in the other end of this Palace, may I say that they are acting independently, and I can only take my position after what happens there.
        We have had contributions from four political parties in this debate so far. I pay tribute to all those contributors who are acknowledged experts on these matters in this place, and I shall add my pennyworth. I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who is associated with the Peabody Trust, a most distinguished organisation. However, the other side of the argument should be put, and it involves the rights of tenants. One cannot be dogmatic, and one has to generalise. I strongly believe that in many cases it is merely a matter of chance whether the tenant was housed by a local authority or by a charitable housing association. Therefore, the rights of tenants should be given some importance. I know from my mailbag that some tenants of some charitable housing associations felt aggrieved that they were excluded from the provisions of the 1980 Act.
        In understanding and reaching a conclusion on this matter, we have to get the matter into balance. The best information that I have is that about 80,000 tenants will come within the provisions of this part of the Bill, out of the 300,000 tenants of charitable housing associations. It is a relatively small proportion. Based on the experience of the right-to-buy provisions in the 1980 Act, it appears

        923
        that about one in 10 of the 80,000 out of 300,000 tenants will exercise their right to buy. So we are talking about perhaps 3 per cent. of tenants in all charitable housing associations.
        7.15 pm
        Mr. W. Benyon: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend is saying, because I read his speech in Committee. He coined the slogan "equal rights for tenants". However, they are not equal. All the people who are housed, for instance, by my trust realise that they are being housed by the Peabody Trust. They had no idea whether they were in this section or that section. Now one tenant will get the right to buy, and another one will not have that right. So to say that equal rights apply to all tenants is nonsense.
        Mr. Chapman: I accept that in part. I can only generalise in the time that is available. There will still be unfairness, but we have to strike a balance. No one is saying that it is absolutely right to take one course and quite wrong to take another. Like most political decisions, it is a question of balance.
        I understand, of course, that the Peabody Trust and other charitable housing associations have housed people who are in the greatest need. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) told us about specific groups of people. Surely it is all the more likely that an even smaller percentage of those people will wish to exercise their right to buy under this Bill. So whereas 3 per cent. overall will take up the offer—I generalise, of course—a much smaller proportion may do so in some of the properties that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and others described.
        I want to comment briefly on the Denbigh triangle which was quite properly mentioned by the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). Again, I have to generalise. It is because it is a prime site in Pimlico, housing people in great need, that a smaller proportion of people will exercise their right to buy. A smaller proportion will exercise their right to buy because, even with the discount that is available, they will have to pay more than they would on a more conventional site. I do not say that that is an answer to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but it is a factor that should be taken into consideration.
        There is some rough justice in what my right hon. Friend proposes in this clause for those involved in the management of charitable housing associations. I do not try to escape that conclusion. However, until this Bill was introduced, and unless it is implemented, there has been even rougher injustice for some tenants. The Bill does not remove all the injustice for all the tenants, but it goes perhaps a small way towards doing so. A balance has to be struck, and I sincerely believe that the Government have made a fair decision.
        Mr. Michael Welsh: I shall be brief. I want to speak in support of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). I do not believe that the issue is whether to buy or sell. The amendment is not about that. It is about something else. The amendment is about having good faith with institutions, and especially with charitable institutions, in making a grant or giving them the right to borrow. It is a matter of good faith that they can do that, and they will be allowed to manage their own property. It
        924
        is a matter of good faith that they can put people into houses, as they think necessary. That is the vital issue of the amendment.
        The hon. Member for Buckingham is saying "All right, let's play the game. Let's play cricket, and do it fairly. Let's put a date on." If any charitable society comes to the Government for grants or to borrow money, that can be written into the legislation. There is nothing wrong with that. I would call that typically British. There is nothing wrong in saying "We shall pass a law, and it will come into operation in a few days' time." I do not subscribe to passing laws in retrospect. I do not care if right hon. or hon. Members say that other Governments have done that. That is no excuse. One bad thing does not excuse another bad thing. The vital issue is "Do you have faith in your Government, or do you have to be wary of individuals who come bearing gifts?"
        Many individuals will leave the charitable associations and no one has condemned them. Everybody has said what good work they have done. I have not had much contact with them because the houses in my constituency belong to the local authority. My constituency is in the country, where there are better opportunities. The Bill will turn people away and only the Government will be to blame. The Government have loaned the charitable associations money which they accepted and they now want to make them sell their assets. For a British Government that is unpalatable.
        If the amendment is not accepted it will be immoral. No conditions were attached when charities were given the money and yet now, eight or 10 years later, they are told that conditions will be imposed. No one can accept that; it is wrong. Charities have built houses for those in need and in doing so they have provided a good service. Many people in the inner cities were proud to have such houses, where they could lay their heads, and live in reasonable conditions. The Government are now telling the charities that, because they built houses for those in need to rent and because some of those who lived in that accommodation got a little richer, they must sell those houses. That is the crux of the matter. Charities that have worked hard for the lower income groups are, as they say in Yorkshire, being given a kick in the teeth for doing so. That is not playing the game.
        I hope that the clause will not be rejected in the other place. I hope that there are sufficient hon. Members to go through the right Lobby tonight—the Lobby in which God will be on their side when they vote for the amendment and against this terrible piece of legislation.
        Mr. Litherland: The Bill is a series of amendments to the Housing Act 1980. Amendment No. 62 is a further attack on the public sector. It promotes the Government's policy of selling off housing that has any public money in it at all. Now, without consultation, the Government are imposing conditions on grant arrangements that were entered into in good faith many years ago by charitable trusts. Those trusts are now being destroyed merely to extend the dogma of the right to buy.
        Members of the Committee have received correspondence saying that the Government's intrusion was an attack on long-established principles of charity law. Organisations such as the Guinness Trust find the measures offensive and would never have accepted grants if they had had any idea that one day a dictatorial Government would force them to sell their houses. We

        925
        have heard from housing trusts and associations that were set up with the sole intention of providing homes in areas of acute housing stress for the needy. Our correspondence has been large and varied, submitting different fears of what would happen were the Bill to become an Act. The Guinness Trust has been in existence for 100 years, providing 1,000 dwellings per year to the smallest charities.
        In my area, the Salford Community Housing Association, the Manchester Methodist Housing Association and the Family Housing Association shout as one voice that the Bill is irresponsible and will cause them to abdicate their obligations to families on the waiting lists who are often living in the most appalling conditions.
        What kind of tenants would the Salford Community Housing Association be renting to? They are mainly sitting tenants, living in substandard property acquired from private landlords who have not maintained the property. There are social service referrals, families suffering from overcrowding and family breakdown, elderly and single persons, single parent families, and so on. They normally have low incomes and a high housing need. The majority of the tenants taken in by that association have no income other than pensions, unemployment or supplementary benefit from the Department of Health and Social Security.
        This is the real world, full of real people in real housing need. It is those people who will be deprived. Associations such as the Salford Community Housing Association and the Manchester Methodist Housing Association provide much-needed rented accommodation, especially in the inner city areas. They will have their housing stock diminished. Their role is not to sell houses; they see their role as providers of accommodation for those in greatest need.
        Many of those associations have voluntary workers and it follows that they will be reluctant to give up their spare time if the aims of the associations are changed by Government diktat. The Government are taking away their independence and responsibilities. They have done it by the sale of council housing and this is the next step in the process of privatisation. Those associations are adamant in their rejection of all proposals to make the right to buy mandatory rather than voluntary. They all believe that compulsory sales would be at a substantial cost to the Government and the taxpayer. Disposal, whether at discount or not, represents the loss of an asset.
        In a document on the sales of charity land the Charity Commission for England and Wales said:
        "Trustees are bound in any dealing with charity properties to give primary consideration to the interests of the charity … If trustees decide to sell, they are under a legal obligation to secure the most advantageous terms for the charity."
        As I said in Committee, to sell houses while there is such a great need is not only immoral; it is a social evil.
        Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I shall not rehearse the arguments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), but I support all that he said. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that the charity commissioners will accept the hon. Gentleman's point and that any trustees will be absolved of their responsibilities and their trusteeship by following the instructions in clause 2.
        I have never known a Bill that has so few supporters. It has been opposed by nearly all hon. Members. The greatest theme of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet
        926
        (Mr. Chapman) was that few people will use it, so why worry? It is argued that it is rough justice. One area in which the Government could exercise rough justice is in the case of Crown estate tenants. Why are they not being encouraged to buy houses? They are a classic example of people using public funds. Any profit goes to the Treasury and any loss is paid for by the Treasury. Yet the Government do not suggest that there should be rough justice for the Crown tenants. Instead, they pick upon the housing associations that in many ways they spawned in 1968. At that time, they grew like Topsy. Now the Government say that they have played the role that was intended for them; they have fulfilled their role between the local authority and the private market.
        If the housing associations had known that they would be forced to sell their property subsequently, they would never have divided their houses in the way that they have. The silly situation arises that where they have provided two modern flats in a house one tenant will opt to buy while the other tenant will not. Consequently the management costs of running the houses will be enormous. Yet the housing association has to run them on a shoestring anyway because it has no great funds to do otherwise. The Minister has not answered that point, but he must. How can he claim that he wants efficiency and effective housing management in local government when, if the clause is successful, he will be forcing the housing associations to use the most inefficient of all methods, so that he can have his whim on "rough justice"? There have been no straightforward answers from the Government as to why they want clause 2. I suggest that the Minister, on reflection, withdraws his clause.
        7.30 pm
        Mrs. Ann Taylor: This has been a most important debate. It is important for housing because clause 2 will reduce the supply of rented accommodation. It is also important for charities generally, not just housing charities. The Bill, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, changes the charity law, although it is a housing Bill.
        The amendment attempts to make the legislation retrospective. As several hon. Members have said, when the housing association grants first became available, there was no suggestion that these consequences would follow and many housing associations and housing charities would not have applied for such grants had they thought that such strings would be attached at a later date.
        In Committee, we pointed out the important fact that other public moneys can go towards housing improvements without any such strings being attached. Improvement grants can be paid to private landlords. That is public money going to improve housing in a way that is comparable to the way that many housing associations operate. However, the same strings are not attached in the former case and the right to buy does not exist.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) has been closely associated with housing charities for many years. He said that in 1974 the members of the present Government supported the concept of housing association grants being made available to housing associations for the improvement of properties and for new building. That attitude of the Government was reinforced in 1980 when the present Minister was steering the Housing Act 1980 through Committee. He said that the

        927
        Government had made an essential distinction. His conclusion was that the right to buy should be extended further to the
        "housing association sector who could reasonably fall under the general umbrella of public sector tenants. We take the view that that should not be extended if it conflicts with charitable law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 1980; c. 15.]
        The Bill conflicts with charity law and so the Minister will change charity law.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) explained the consequences that might arise for trustees of housing charities who allowed assets to be disposed of at less than the best possible price. We discussed in Committee the problems for charities that have a legal obligation to secure the most advantageous terms should any sale or disposal of the assets take place. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, the National Federation of Housing Associations wrote to the Solicitor-General for his advice and interpretation of the rules on charities. I share the concern of the hon. Member that there is no Law Officer present to give advice this evening. We asked for that in Committee but the Government refused to provide us with direct advice.
        The hon. Member for Buckingham quoted the part of the reply to the national association from the Solicitor-General that dealt with the "necessitous poor". The implications of that were much wider than just this particular clause and the right-to-buy provisions. The implications behind the reply cover those people in housing charity accommodation who do not want to exercise the right to buy because it implies or threatens, as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) did, that if people in charitable accommodation became too prosperous they should be forced to move out and go to live elsewhere. The difficult problem that has not been covered in the Solicitor-General's advice and in the examples given by the Minister in Committee, and which the hon. Member for Buckingham tried to raise, is the dilemma facing housing charities should their tenants become more prosperous than at the time of the allocation.
        It is obvious, according to their rules as well as anybody else's, that charities must consider the circumstances of their tenants at the time of letting. They must be old people, the poor or those suffering from some handicap. However, circumstances can change. Those with lower incomes may improve their earnings. A divorced woman with children may marry and the whole family may continue to live in the accommodation. People who have been in psychiatric hospitals and receiving treatment, and who have been given housing on that basis, may recover and be debarred according to the Minister's new rule.
        At the moment, if somebody's financial circumstances improve after they have been given accommodation in a charitable housing property, it is natural for them to move into owner occupation because there are substantial financial advantages in becoming an owner-occupier. However, if the Bill becomes law these people will be well advised to stay put and claim the very high discount that will be available under clause 2 and which they will be able to obtain only if they purchase the house that they are renting at the time. The Government are giving a financial incentive to people to buy their charitable home rather than moving into the ordinary owner-occupied sector. That will
        928
        have serious consequences on the supply of rented accommodation, which, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, is scarce and much needed.
        I am concerned about the misleading advice given by the Solicitor-General in the letter—it may be that he did not fully understand the circumstances—about the discount and whether there is a problem with the disposal of assets of the charity in regard to the price that will be obtained by the charity once the discount is given and the debts of the charity on that property are repaid. The Solicitor-General says that there is no problem because if anybody loses because of the discount it will be not the charity but the Government. However, he fails to take into account the real value of the property at the time of the sale.
        It is true that the housing charity may recover the price that it has had to pay to have the property built, but that may be nothing like the real value of the property that is being disposed of. For example, if a property had been built at a cost of £12,000, but was not worth £18,000, the housing association would be guaranteed only the £12,000 that it cost it to build the property in the first place. Therefore, the housing charity would be losing the £6,000 because of the changed value of the asset of which it was disposing, and the property as a whole. Therefore, the Solicitor-General's advice is misleading, and the Charity Commission will need to have another look at the problem because charities will be losing assets and disposing of them at less than the best possible price.
        Mr. Chapman: Surely the point is that, with a sitting tenant, the value of the property—it is difficult to generalise—could well be only one third of its value with vacant possession. That is a crucial point. Surely that knocks to pieces the point that the hon. Lady is making.
        Mrs. Taylor: Not at all. Those housing charities are in the business of renting accommodation, and that is the value of the property to them. They regard the property as a valuable unit which could be rented to a family in need or with problems. That is their purpose. The Bill cuts across the most fundamental reason for their existence because it will prevent them from housing people in need.
        As many hon. Members have said, we have received many representations. They have come from Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist, and Salvation Army housing associations, and from large housing charities such as Peabody and Sutton Guinness and others that have been working for many years. We have also received representations from housing charities that deal with handicapped people, those with behavioural, drinking or financial problems and charities that house refugees. Many people involved in housing associations are deeply worried that the reason for their existence will be undermined by this legislation.
        We are dealing with people who probably have no chance of buying accommodation and therefore need rented accommodation. Their chances of obtaining rented accommodation from the other part of the public sector—the council house side—are being reduced considerably because of the sale of council houses and the lack of new building.
        The hon. Member for Buckingham said that we were dealing mainly with people who lived in inner city areas. He drew attention to people who lived in London. People in London who live in housing charity accommodation

        929
        have little chance of getting alternative accommodation. There is no possibility of their being able to afford to buy in London and little possibility of their being able to find rented private sector accommodation because of the many gross abuses of rent legislation in London and the consequently high rents.
        The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) mentioned some of the smaller housing associations that deal with people with special problems. We raised the subject in Committee and are deeply worried about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East mentioned the Egerton housing association which may be forced out of existence by the Bill. I share his anxiety about the small housing associations that are trying to help special groups of people with special problems. The elderly are just one of the categories that housing associations try to help.
        I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Housing Act 1980 contained some exceptions so that the right to buy does not exist when accommodation is required for elderly people. The problem is that the legislation has not worked out as the Minister said it would. The assurances that he gave in 1980 have proved to be worthless in practice. The Minister has turned down 90 per cent. of the applications for exemption under the 1980 Act for people who live in accommodation that is deemed to be for elderly people. Therefore, in all but 10 per cent. of the cases, the Minister has allowed the sales to go ahead. Therefore, there is no real protection for the people who are trying to help the elderly or to provide housing for people in greatest need.
        If the Bill is passed, housing charities will lose their assets. It is no use the Minister saying that the proceeds of the sales will be recycled. We know from our experience of council house sales that local authorities must sell 12 houses to build one new one. Housing charities will be in even worse circumstances because the Exchequer will get its money back and many housing charities will be forced out of existence because they will be deprived of funds to continue or replace the stock that they have sold.
        Some housing charities will disappear for financial reasons, others will be forced out of existence because the volunteers who have run them will say, "Why should we bother? Why should our voluntary effort, which has been given willingly for many years, simply result in private gain for a few fortunate people?". That was not their objective or their intention. There can be no point in such voluntary effort if that is the result of the Minister's legislation.
        Hon. Members have today reinforced some of the arguments that we advanced in Committee. We warned the Government then that this would not be the end of the matter. We intend to support the amendment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh), I hope that it will be successful. If it is not, I am sure that the Minister will have to come to terms with the problem in another place. I look forward to the whole House supporting the changes on that occasion.
        Mr. Stanley: I shall try to respond to the points that have been made, but I may not be able to deal with all of them because of the shortage of time.
        The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) read a letter from the Salvation Army housing association. It has been somewhat overtaken. That is not unusual
        930
        because there has been an enormous amount of misunderstanding and some misrepresentation of our proposals. It is only when they have been properly explained that people have been able to take a balanced view. It is worth pointing out that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has received another letter from the commissioner who is responsible for the Salvation Army housing association, which reads as follows:
        "Thank you for your kind explanatory letter of 31st January. This, taken together with the Minister's statement in Standing Committee F, does very largely allay our misgivings concerning the Housing and Building Control Bill. In this I speak, not only for our Association but also for The Salvation Army, from whom any charitable input of funds must normally come".
        My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) raised two important points. He referred to the problem of small housing associations that deal with specialist matters. There are already exemptions for some of the specialties, such as the elderly and the disabled. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) unfairly misrepresented the exemptions for the elderly, because she referred solely to paragraph 5 of schedule 1 and did not refer at all to paragraph 4 of that schedule, under which all sheltered accommodation is exempt without reference to the Secretary of State. As to the number of terminations that have been granted by the Secretary of State in giving the right to buy, we received several blanket applications from Labour-controlled authorities which, for example, excluded all ground floor accommodation.
        Mrs. Taylor: Very sensible.
        Mr. Stanley: That is not remotely within the terms of the legislation as agreed by Parliament.
        I should also like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown to the fact that already, in schedule 4 of the 1980 Act, there are several grounds for possession that might be applicable in certain circumstances if a specialist housing association wanted to preserve its accommodation for special uses. Perhaps he would like to consider grounds 9, 11 and 12. If I can give him any more help on the possible use of those grounds in the circumstances to which he has referred, I shall be glad to do so. They are relevant.
        My hon. Friend also asked about donations to charities. I assure him that there are no rational grounds for saying that the Bill will act as a deterrent to the giving of donations. If donations are given in kind by way of land, all dwellings that are built on charitably donated land are exempt. If the donation is in the building of a property, that is also exempt, even if housing association grant has been spent on the property. No donor need worry about that. If a cash donation is translated into either land or the purchase of a building, by the same token those exemptions will apply. A small cash donation that may be used to top up an existing housing association grant charitable property will be preserved at its modern value.
        I sympathise with the intentions behind the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), because I recognise his wish to give more of his constituents the opportunity of home ownership. I understand his frustration with the constituency case that he mentioned where, under an earlier financing system, tenants of charitable housing associations are not brought within the parameters of this legislation. However, we have carefully considered the earlier subsidy systems, and

        931
        it is clear that that legislation was different from the Housing Act 1974, which created the housing association grant.
        There is likely to have been a significant input of charitable funds into those earlier publicly funded properties. We have come to the conclusion that we cannot be certain, as we can with the housing association grant system, of being able to provide full protection for charitable funds, which has been a fundamental principle of the Government. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot accept his amendment, simply because the Government cannot be certain that they can provide the proper protection for charitable funds, which was part of our stance when we brought forward these provisions.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) was clearly worried that there would be a significant overall reduction in rented property available from charitable housing associations. There are no grounds for believing that, because only secure tenants under the Housing Act 1980 can buy. If one is not a secure tenant, one cannot exercise the right to buy. A secure tenant has full rights to his home and to succession in his home. The practice in local authority accomodation and in non-charitable housing association accommodation is that the great majority of secure tenants who do not have the right to buy will remain secure tenants in their properties for a considerable period, and so a very small proportion of property is likely to become available for people on the waiting list. Therefore, it cannot be said that if we confer the right to buy on a relatively small proportion of tenants, it will amount to a material reduction in the available rented property. If we were to create more rented opportunities for charitable housing associations, we would do that largely with new building, rehabilitation and the bringing in of additional properties.
        I can give the House statistics that show what has happened to housing association rented properties since the 1980 Act. In 1980, we gave the right to buy to tenants of non-charitable housing associations. Up to the end of last year, the number of completed sales by those associations was 2,550. In comparison, during the lifetime of this Government we have expanded the rented stock of charitable and non-charitable housing associations by 120,000 units. For every one housing association dwelling where the tenant had exercised his right to buy, we have added nearly 50 units to the existing rented stock. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that there will be a dramatic reduction in rented accommodation in the charitable sector.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham also mentioned the effect on voluntary workers, and again we know what has happened. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, non-charitable housing associations cater for almost exactly the same category of people as charitable housing associations. Those tenants have had the right to buy for two and a half years. Any disastrous loss of enthusiasm or a drain of voluntary workers should have taken place during that period, but I am glad to tell the House that there is no sign of a diminution of enthusiasm in the non-charitable housing associations. They are as strong now as they ever were, and I am inundated with demands for additional housing association grant allocations and housing schemes. Indeed, there are so many demands from those
        932
        associations that, if we wished, we could spend all the Housing Corporation's approved development programme on the non-charitable housing associations. Of course we do not. Those associations have survived perfectly well and are as robust and dynamic now as they were when the right-to-buy scheme started in 1980.
        Several hon. Members have mentioned retrospection, but that is a complete canard. The Government are not conferring rights retrospectively against assets that were created by the charity itself. The right-to-buy scheme applies only to dwellings that were provided by taxpayers' money together with housing association grant. It would have been different had we conferred rights against charitable assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) was right to say that the Leasehold Reform Act is by no means irrelevant. For 15 years, the House has agreed the leasehold enfranchisement, which included 30 per cent. of charitable dwellings. That meant that about 300,000 charitable properties were affected by that legislation. The retrospective legislation applied to dwellings that were built entirely with private money.
        Apart from the fact that this legislation applies only to publicly funded dwellings, the central question is that of discriminatory treatment of tenants of charitable housing associations in housing association grant-funded property. Those tenants are identical in legal and financial terms to the tenants who already have the right to buy non-charitable housing association stock. On those grounds, I believe that it is right and equitable that we make a limited expansion of the right to buy available to the small group of charitable housing association tenants living in wholly publicly funded dwellings.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 258.

        Division No. 99]

        [8 pm

        AYES

        Abse, Leo

        Dalyell, Tam

        Allaun, Frank

        Davidson, Arthur

        Alton, David

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

        Anderson, Donald

        Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Deakins, Eric

        Ashton, Joe

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

        Dewar, Donald

        Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

        Dixon, Donald

        Beith, A. J.

        Dormand, Jack

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Douglas, Dick

        Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

        Dunnett, Jack

        Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Eadie, Alex

        Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        English, Michael

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Ennals, Rt Hon David

        Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

        Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Evans, John (Newton)

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

        Ewing, Harry

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Buchan, Norman

        Flannery, Martin

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Ford, Ben

        Canavan, Dennis

        Foulkes, George

        Cant, R. B.

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

        Carmichael, Neil

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        Cartwright, John

        Freud, Clement

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Garrett, John (Norwich S)

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

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Cohen, Stanley

        Golding, John

        Coleman, Donald

        Graham, Ted

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        Grimond, Rt Hon J.

        Crowther, Stan

        Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

        Cryer, Bob

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

        Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        933

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Price, C. (Lewisham W)

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

        Richardson, Jo

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

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Home Robertson, John

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Hooley, Frank

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

        Howell, Rt Hon D.

        Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Robertson, George

        Huckfield, Les

        Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Rooker, J. W.

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Roper, John

        Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Rowlands, Ted

        Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

        Ryman, John

        John, Brynmor

        Sandelson, Neville

        Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

        Sever, John

        Jones, Dan (Burnley)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Kerr, Russell

        Short, Mrs Renée

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

        Kinnock, Neil

        Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

        Lambie, David

        Silverman, Julius

        Lamond, James

        Skinner, Dennis

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

        Leighton, Ronald

        Spearing, Nigel

        Lestor, Miss Joan

        Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

        Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Stallard, A. W.

        Litherland, Robert

        Stoddart, David

        Lyon, Alexander (York)

        Strang, Gavin

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Straw, Jack

        McKelvey, William

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        McTaggart, Robert

        Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

        Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

        Tilley, John

        Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

        Torney, Tom

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

        Mason, Rt Hon Roy

        Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

        Meacher, Michael

        Wardell, Gareth

        Mikardo, Ian

        Welsh, Michael

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        White, Frank R.

        Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

        White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

        Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

        Whitlock, William

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

        Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

        Morton, George

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

        Newens, Stanley

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

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Wilson, William (C'try SE)

        Ogden, Eric

        Winnick, David

        O'Halloran, Michael

        Woodall, Alec

        O'Neill, Martin

        Wright, Sheila

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Park, George

        Parker, John

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Parry, Robert

        Mr. Frank Haynes and

        Penhaligon, David

        Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Alexander, Richard

        Bright, Graham

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Brinton, Tim

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

        Ancram, Michael

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Arnold, Tom

        Brotherton, Michael

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

        Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Banks, Robert

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

        Bendall, Vivian

        Buck, Antony

        Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

        Budgen, Nick

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Burden, Sir Frederick

        Best, Keith

        Butcher, John

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Chapman, Sydney

        Blackburn, John

        Churchill, W. S.

        Body, Richard

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

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Clegg, Sir Walter

        934

        Cockeram, Eric

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Colvin, Michael

        Lee, John

        Cope, John

        Le Marchant, Spencer

        Cormack, Patrick

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Corrie, John

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

        Critchley, Julian

        Loveridge, John

        Crouch, David

        Luce, Richard

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Dorrell, Stephen

        McCrindle, Robert

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        Macfarlane, Neil

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        MacGregor, John

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        MacKay, John (Argyll)

        Durant, Tony

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

        Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

        McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

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

        Eggar, Tim

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Eyre, Reginald

        Major, John

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Marland, Paul

        Faith, Mrs Sheila

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Farr, John

        Mates, Michael

        Finsberg, Geoffrey

        Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

        Mawby, Ray

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

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

        Mellor, David

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Forman, Nigel

        Miller, Hal (B grove)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Fry, Peter

        Moate, Roger

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Gardner, Sir Edward

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Moore, John

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Morgan, Geraint

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Gow, Ian

        Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Mudd, David

        Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

        Murphy, Christopher

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

        Myles, David

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Grist, Ian

        Needham, Richard

        Grylls, Michael

        Nelson, Anthony

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Neubert, Michael

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Newton, Tony

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

        Hannam, John

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Osborn, John

        Hastings, Stephen

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Parris, Matthew

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        Henderson, Barry

        Patten, John (Oxford)

        Hicks, Robert

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Pawsey, James

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Percival, Sir Ian

        Holland, Philip (Carlton)

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Hooson, Tom

        Pollock, Alexander

        Hordern, Peter

        Porter, Barry

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

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Prior, Rt Hon James

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Rathbone, Tim

        Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

        Rees-Davies, W. R.

        Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

        Renton, Tim

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Kaberry, Sir Donald

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Ridley, Hon Nicholas

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Rossi, Hugh

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Rost, Peter

        Knox, David

        Royle, Sir Anthony

        Lang, Ian

        Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

        Langford-Holt, Sir John

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Latham, Michael

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        935

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

        Shepherd, Richard

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Silvester, Fred

        Viggers, Peter

        Sims, Roger

        Wakeham, John

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Waldegrave, Mon William

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Walker, B. (Perth)

        Speed, Keith

        Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

        Speller, Tony

        Wall, Sir Patrick

        Spence, John

        Waller, Gary

        Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

        Walters, Dennis

        Sproat, Iain

        Ward, John

        Squire, Robin

        Warren, Kenneth

        Stainton, Keith

        Watson, John

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Wells, Bowen

        Stanley, John

        Wheeler, John

        Steen, Anthony

        Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

        Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

        Whitney, Raymond

        Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

        Wickenden, Keith

        Stokes, John

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Williams, D.(Montgomery)

        Tapsell, Peter

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

        Thompson, Donald

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

        Mr. Carol Mather and

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Mr. Robert Boscawen.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being after Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eight o' clock.

      Clause 5

        NOTICE TO COMPLETE BY LANDLORD
        Amendments made: No. 5, in page 6, line 17, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.
        No. 6, in, page 6, line 41, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.
        No. 7, in page 6, line 45, at end insert—
        '(6A) At any time before the end of the period stated in a notice under subsection (6) above (or that period as extended under this subsection), the landlord may by a written notice served on the tenant extend (or further extend) that period.'
        No. 8, in page 7, line 1, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.
        No. 9, in page 7, line 4, at end insert
        'or, as the case may require, that period as extended under subsection (6A) above.'
        No. 10, in page 7, line 6, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.
        No. 11, in page 7, line 16, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.
        No. 12, in page 7, line 17, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 9
        SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ETC
        Amendment made: No. 45, in page 10, line 1, leave out Clause 9.—[Mr Stanley.]
      Clause 10

        SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO GIVE ASSISTANCE
        Amendments made: No. 46, in page 10, line 24, leave out '24' and insert '24C'.
        No. 47, in page 10, line 26, leave out '24A' and insert '24D'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 11

        POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS CERTAIN MORTGAGE COSTS
        Amendments made: No. 48, in page 12, line 5, leave out '24A' and insert '24D'.
        No. 49, in page 12, line 7, leave out '24B' and insert '24E'.
        No. 13, in page 12, line 31, at end insert—
        (2) In section 27(2) of the 1980 Act (interpretation of Chapter I of Part I of that Act) immediately before the definition of "district valuer" there shall be inserted the following definition—
        "building society" means a building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1962 or the Building Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1967;"; and in section 8(8) of that Act the words from the beginning to "and" shall be omitted.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 14

        NOTICE OF INITIAL CONTRIBUTION ETC
        Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 14, line 4, leave out 'as soon as practicable' and insert 'within eight weeks'.
        The amendment has been inspired by what was, for me, the most revolutionary spectacle during the Committee proceedings—the sight of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) moving an amendment to speed up the right to buy by deleting the requirement on local authorities to serve a shared ownership offer notice, not, as originally drafted, as soon as practical after the tenant's right to be granted a shared ownership lease has been established, but within eight weeks.
        We have contemplated the hon. Gentleman's excellent initiative. I am sorry that he is not with us. I express my gratitude and appreciation to him for his helpful contribution towards speeding up progress with the right to buy. We are satisfied that the introduction of such a deadline into clause 14(1) is reasonable because most of the information required for the shared ownership offer notice will already have been ascertained by the landlord under the right-to-buy procedures. Landlords should find no difficulty, therefore, in meeting the eight-week deadline. The valuation, the tenant's discount and the mortgage entitlement will have been previously assessed.
        I ask the House to accept the amendment. I once again express my appreciation and thanks to the hon. Member for Walsall, North for his belated, but none the less deeply welcome, conversion to the cause of greater progress in implementing the right to buy.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 14, line 5, after 'a', insert 'written'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18 and 37 to 39.
        Mr. Stanley: These are drafting amendments to ensure consistency in the description of "notices" in part 1 of the Bill. They all relate to notices served by a landlord on the tenant, and in most cases the detail that they are required to contain must mean that in practice the notices will be given in writing. The amendments will help to avoid any confusion and put it beyond doubt as to how the notices are to be served.
        8.15 pm
        Mr. Graham: Is there any consistency in the listing of these amendments? Can the Minister explain why the list refers to Government amendments 16 to 18, whereas Government amendments 37, 38 and 39 are listed separately? That is not consistent.
        Mr. Stanley: I am mesmerised by the hon. Gentleman's question. I have no idea what the answer is, but I shall be happy to send him a detailed explanation.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 16, in page 14, line 23, after 'a', insert 'written'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 16
        RIGHT TO FURTHER ADVANCES
        Amendment made: No. 17, in page 15, line 14, after 'a', insert 'written'.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      Clause 17

        COMPLETION
        Amendments made:
        No. 18, in page 16, line 32, after 'a', insert 'further written'.
        No. 19, in page 16 line 38, at end insert—
        '(6A) At any time before the end of the period stated in a notice under subsection (6) above (or that period as extended under this subsection), the landlord may by a written notice served on the tenant extend (or further extend) that period.'.
        No. 20, in page 16, line 44, at end insert
        'or, as the case may require, that period as extended under subsection (6A) above.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 18

        CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF OTHER ACTS
        Amendments made:
        No. 21, in page 17, line 19, leave out from 'lease' to 'shall' in line 22 and insert 'the tenancy'.
        No, 22, in page 17, line 24, leave out from leaseholds)' to end of line 25 and insert
        '—

        (a) as being a long tenancy notwithstanding that the lease is granted for a term not exceeding 21 years; and

        (b) as being a tenancy at a low rent notwithstanding that rent is payable under the tenancy at a yearly rate equal to or more than two-thirds of the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the first day of the term.

        (1A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, where a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house is created by the grant of a shared ownership lease, then, so long as the rent
        938
        payable under the lease exceeds £10 per annum, neither the tenant nor the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or 7ndirectly derived out of the tenancy shall be entitled to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of the dwelling-house under Part I of the said Act of 1967'.
        No. 23, in page 18, line 4, at end insert—
        '(5) In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3 to the 1980 Act (tenancies which are not secure tenancies) after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or Part I of the Housing and Building Control Act 1983".'.[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 19

        APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF 1980 ACT
        Amendments made:
        No. 50, in page 18, line 12, leave out 'section 23' and insert 'sections 23 and 24'.
        No. 51, in page 18, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
        'sections 24A and 24B (Secretary of State's power to give directions);
        section 24C (Secretary of State's power to obtain information etc.);
        section 24D (Secretary of State's power to give assistance);
        section 24E (power of local authorities to contribute towards certain mortgage costs);'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 21

        RIGHT TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS FOR WHICH LANDLORD IS RESPONSIBLE
        Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 8 leave out '37A' and insert '41'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55.
        Mr. Stanley: First, I wish to explain that amendments Nos. 52 to 54 are not substantive. Their purpose is simply to secure the proper ordering of the new clauses within the tenants' charter provisions of chapter II of part I of the Housing Act 1980. They bring together the clause on secure tenants' rights to repairs and a new clause on heating charges under a new heading:
        "Other rights of secure tenants".
        The substantive amendment in the group is amendment No. 55. As the House will be aware, a significant number of council tenants using district heating are worried about their heating charges. They are worried about the lack of information on how those charges should be calculated and they wonder whether the basis of the apportionment of the cost of heating between individual tenants is reasonable.
        The Government have given further consideration to the whole issue, following the ten-minute Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on 20 April last year. On that occassion, the ten-minute Bill was in no way an empty expression of views, introducing no legislative progress. After detailed consideration of the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the Government moved towards the process of consultation. Although the Government were convinced by the merits of the case, I should like to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Gentleman, who was the originator of the provisions.
        On 28 June, we issued a consultation letter to local authorities inviting their views on the possibility of giving public tenants statutory rights of information and legal

        939
        challenge in respect of heating charges, bearing in mind that private tenants already had such rights under schedule 19 to the 1980 Acts.
        One of the purposes of the hon. Gentleman's ten-minute Bill was to achieve greater comparability between the legal rights of council tenants who remain tenants and those who exercise the right to buy or to be lessees, as most of those on district heating would be, who would benefit from the extension to lessees of the protection provided by schedule 19 in respect of service charges.
        As I said in Committee, we have concluded that it is right to make that further extension of the tenants' charter—hence the amendment. The amendment will give the Secretary of State enabling power to introduce certain requirements by regulation. The regulations would oblige local authorities and new town development corporations which supply heat to secure tenants to adopt such methods for determining heating charges payable by such tenants as will ensure that the proportion of the heating costs borne by each tenant is no greater than is reasonable.
        The aim is to ensure, first, that tenants' heating charges are apportioned in a reasonable way between different dwellings and that the method of apportionment is open to challenge in the courts. Housing association tenants supplied with heat by their landlords are not included, as they are already protected under the fair rent system and schedule 19 to the 1980 Act.
        Secondly, secure tenants would be entitled to require their supplying authorities to furnish information about the costs incurred in supplying the heat and the charges payable to the supplying authorities. Secure tenants would also be entitled to require their supplying authorities to provide reasonable facilities for inspecting the accounts and other supporting documentation and for taking copies or extracts from the documents. These rights would be broadly similar to the rights already enjoyed by tenants of flats in relation to variable services charges under schedule 19 to the 1980 Act.
        From the reactions to the consultation last year, I believe that local authorities broadly accept that there should be proposals on these general lines. We wish to introduce the necessary regulations as soon as we can, but local authorities will need reasonable time to organise themselves to discharge their new obligations. Moreover, given the variety of district heating and accounting systems, it is essential that there should be further detailed consultation with the local authority associations as to the precise form of the regulations and the timing of their introduction. That consultation will be set in hand as soon as possible. We should like the information regulations to be operational for the 1984–85 financial year.
        I believe that this is a worthwhile and sensible extension of the tenants' charter for several hundred thousand tenants supplied by various types of district heating system. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
        Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to query part of the amendment, not because we are not concerned about heating charges—we made it clear in Committee that we are concerned—but because the Minister said that the amendment related simply to information for tenants. That is reasonable, but the second part of the amendment provides that
        940
        "The Secretary of State may by regulations require heating authorities to adopt such methods for determining any heating charges payable by secure tenants to whom this section applies"—
        and so on. On what basis does the Secretary of State believe that he will have sufficient information to establish reasonable regulations covering all the circumstances?
        I ask that question in the light of the recent report of the Department's auditing inspectors who have been reviewing housing supervision, administration, management and so on. One of their tasks was to examine district heating charges and the means of determining what charges were reasonable and the items to be included. I simply wonder how the Minister thinks that he can achieve something that his own auditing inspectors could not achieve after detailed inspection of the procedures for calculating the charges in several authorities.
        Mr. George Cunningham: It is a real pleasure to support the amendment. I reciprocate the Minister's kind remarks. The amendment would not exist and these important rights would not be conferred for the first time on council tenants were it not for the sympathetic and understanding response that he and the Under-Secretary of State made to my ten-minute Bill last April.
        The excessive charges that council tenants often have to pay for space heating and water is a longstanding scandal. Council tenants pay about twice as much for the same quantity of space heating and hot water as they would do if they had separate gas-fired independent systems in each flat. I am discussing those cases where there is what I call a communal heating system fired by a central boiler and where the charge is levied each year by the local authority to recover its costs. Normally, the local authority endeavours only to cover the cost of fuel and not the cost of the actual heating installations which lie on the rent account, but even the cost of fuel is enormously high in most of the systems.
        The cost is so high for several reasons. First, many of these systems, because they were developed years ago, use oil and not gas and, for at least some years until the present day, oil has been more expensive. Secondly, many of these systems are old fashioned and inefficient. Thirdly, there is often grotesquely inefficient management of these systems within housing departments. Fourthly, it is normally impossible with these systems for the tenants to switch them off during the day to save money. That contrasts, of course, with the position of a person who has an independent system in his home where, if everyone in the home is out through the day, the resident can turn off the system and save money. More and more these days, both adults in the family are out during the day and could, if they were able to save money by it, do without heating during the day. Those are some of the reasons for the high charges that the communal systems produce.
        On previous occasions I have given examples of the charges that prevail in my constituency. They bear repeating, especially for those people who believe that council tenants have an easy and cheap ride compared to the rest of the community. For example, on the Packinston square estate in my constituency, tenants pay, for hot water and three space heating outlets which normally work very badly indeed, in the region of £9 a week all the year round—call it £450 a year. A similar charge prevails on the Jessop estate where there are three outlets for hot air, although the properties are not normally hot, plus water for

        941
        a charge of about £450 to £500 a year. Not only the inefficiency of Islington borough council produces such charges. In my constituency, I have a large number of places which belong to the City of London corporation. The Golden lane estate, which rests in the foothills of the Barbican, has enormously high heating charges. For water and one space heating outlet residents will pay as much as £400 a year. On the Delhi-Outram estate in Islington, people have an efficient and modern system with hot water and plenty of radiators, but it costs them more than £800 for the service. I could give many other examples. There is the Spa Green estate, the Priory Green estate, the Stafford Cripps estate and so on.
        There is another special reason why this change in the law will be specially welcomed in Islington. Over the past two years Islington borough council, by monumental incompetence in keeping its books—incompetence which is not to be ascribed to any party because it is the work of officers of the council and not councillors—has managed to overcharge tenants, even according to the system that it was trying to impose, to the tune of £650,000. That is an overcharge of £100 per dwelling over two years. It is an overcharge of £1 a week through two years. Tenants in Islington with communal heating systems were being charged too much. I do not mean that they were paying a charge excessive for the service that they were getting, although that, too, is true. I mean that they were paying that much more than the fuel that they were using actually cost the council. The council could not competently keep its books to enable it to know how much the fuel was costing. That justifies the provisions in the amendment that state that council tenants in future must be able to gain access to the books in the same way as private tenants can gain access to the books to examine charges affecting them.
        8.30 pm
        The Islington borough council intends not to refund the money in cash or cheque to those from whom it has taken excess charges. Apparently it intends to deduct it from payments due in the future, as if the council were offering largesse to the tenants instead of handing back the money which it should never have taken from them in the first place. I intend to ensure that that maladministration, in my view, and wrong decision, gets to the local authority ombudsman. I think that he will say that it constitutes maladministration leading to injustice for the residents affected.
        If the new proposed provisions had been on the statute book over the past few years, Islington borough council could not have got away with that kind of overcharging. If the council could not add up the figures, the residents would have been able to do so if only they could have got their hands on the books. Once they had done that, if these provisions had been law, they would have been able to go to the county court to argue that the charge was unreasonable.
        The provisions that the Minister is introducing will give to many thousands of tenants rights which, as I understand it, the Minister intends to make as near as possible identical to the rights now enjoyed by private tenants. That is, first, to have the right to all the information necessary to know what costs lie behind the charge and, secondly, the right to go to the county court to argue that the charge is unreasonable for the service provided.
        942
        The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench for the Labour party, a party which has not over the past two years taken much of an interest in this matter or done anything practical about it, raised an artificial difficulty as to what would be reasonable.
        Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
        Mr. Cunningham: No. The hon. Lady raised an artificial difficulty as to what would be reasonable. In the case of a private tenant, the court is the body that decides what would be reasonable. Although it is much easier in the case of most private blocks to work out what is reasonable, there are cases where the difficulties are comparable with the difficulties which apply to a council estate. If, for example, one of the very large and widespread housing associations such as Samuel Lewis, Peabody or Sutton estate wanted to pool the whole of its estate for the purpose of heating charges, then the issue would come up as to whether it was reasonable to do that for the whole of the estate or whether it ought to pool only within individual blocks in the tiny sections of the estates. That would be a matter for the court to decide.
        I think that we shall get into enormous difficulties if we start to construct in the regulations that the Minister proposes to make rules that depart from the principle that applies in the case of private tenants. My understanding is that the regulations might give elaborate definitions of the information that tenants are to be allowed to get from the council. When it comes to what is enforceable in the county court, as I understand it, the intention is that the regulations will rest upon the definition of reasonableness and will leave the interpretation of that word to the courts, as in the case of a private tenant.
        There has been a two-year battle to get the regulations changed. Once again I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Construction. From the very moment when the ten-minute Bill was moved last April, he made clear in words and in actions that the change would have his full sympathy and support. Consultations then took place between the Department of the Environment and local authority associations. Local authority associations were told to respond quickly. All this has been an admirable illustration of proper, productive co-operation between a Back-Bench Member and the Treasury Bench. Thousands and thousands of my constituents and many others elsewhere will express gratitude to all of us in the House who have taken part in the operation.
        Mr. Stanley: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) and touched on by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind comments.
        On the interpretation of subsection (2), my initial response when I saw the draft was the same as that of the hon. Lady. I did not wish my right hon. Friend to decide exactly what should be the criteria as to reasonableness in apportioning district heating charges. I am advised that subsection (2) does not enable the Secretary of State to lay down how "reasonable" should be interpreted. That is entirely a matter for the court, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury indicated.

        943
        Subsection (2) only enables the Secretary of State to impose the requirement by regulation that the method adopted by heating authorities to which the regulation applies will comply with the subsection. As I understand it, the regulation would simply indicate that there will be an obligation on local authorities to adopt such methods for determining heating charges payable by secure tenants as will ensure that the proportion of heating costs borne by each of those tenants is no greater than is reasonable. In other words, the regulation would effectively reproduce what is stated in subsection (2).
        I hope that gives a sense of relief to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. It was a relief to me when I was advised that that was the interpretation because we do not want to be in the business of having to try to determine what criteria should be adopted for what is reasonable.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 53, in page 21, line 9, leave out 'section' and insert
        'sections—
        Other rights of secure tenants'
        No. 54, in page 21, line 10, leave out '37B' and insert '41A'.—[Mr. Stanley.]
        Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 21, line 23, at end insert—
        '(c) The scheme will operate only where a landlord has failed within reasonable time to carry out repairs after receiving due notice from the secure tenant.
        (d) The landlord shall from time to time publish a list of approved contractors whose services must be used by the tenant and where a direct labour department exists the tenant must obtain two quotations one of which must be from the direct labour department.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69.
        Mr. Roberts: I want to explain why Members of the Opposition have tabled these amendments and why we think they are essential. In justifying them, I wish to refer to what the Government are proposing and then point out how the amendments would operate in relation to that, and also what the amendments mean in relation to the policy of the Labour party on tenants' rights to repairs and the relationship that direct labour departments should have with those rights.
        Clause 21, which these two amendments propose to change, is a blatant attempt by the Government to privatise the repair services of local authorities. There is no doubt about that. The proposal is that the Secretary of State can make regulations to provide a scheme for entitling secure tenants to carry out their own repairs. This would be done by the employment of private contractors and, if the clause is unamended, only by private contractors, even, it seems, where the local authority is not in default and is providing an adequate repair and maintenance service with which the tenants may be completely satisfied.
        There are many objections to the clause. It would make things worse for the tenants. It effectively removes the landlords' obligations while the scheme is in operation. One purpose of amendment No. 69 is to ensure that, if a privatisation scheme is to be introduced, an attempt should be made to spell out the landlords' obligations even when
        944
        the Government will not accept an input from the direct labour department where a private tenant wishes to have a repair done.
        We wish to prevent the removal of the landlords' obligations while the scheme is in operation. It is a great danger. Under the clause, some local authorities could take advantage of the scheme to offer a superficially attractive discount rent to tenants provided that they undertook to carry out all the repairs for which the landlord was otherwise responsible. To tenants, that might at first seem attractive. Eventually, however, the tenant might be worse off. The tenant might face big repair bills once the landlord's obligations had been destroyed in law following the introduction of the scheme and the tenant's acceptance of proposals from the local authority.
        The costs to the local authority when the scheme is implemented will be considerable. It is a dubious claim that tenants' money will, in the long run, be saved. Local authorities will have to produce new accounting methods to identify separately the costs of every minor repair. There will be the cost of setting up the scheme and the cost of inspection to make sure that repairs are adequately carried out. This could be costly even for the local authority with an efficient repair and maintenance service if the new scheme is superimposed upon it.
        It is worrying that the tenants taking advantage of the scheme will probably be the most able and the richer tenants who can fund the repairs in the first instance before claiming back the money. Some of these more able tenants may carry out the work at the moment without payment. Under the scheme, they will be entitled to payment. Costs will arise that will be passed on to other tenants. This concerns the Opposition.
        8.45 pm
        The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is opposed to this proposal and supports, to some extent if not completely, our amendments. It has said, in submission to members for the Standing Committee, that it recognises that many council tenants are dissatisfied with their repair service, as Opposition Members also recognised. That is why in Committee we tabled our own clause, which we thought a fair and just one, to provide a proper right-to-repair service and a proper right in law to tenants to have repairs done where the local authority is in default.
        In its submission, the AMA goes on:
        "We would therefore respectfully suggest that if the Minister is genuinely interested in improving the repair service for a majority of tenants"—
        having accepted that there are many inadequacies in many areas—
        "a more thorough and well thought out series of proposals be considered rather than a very narrow scheme such as this and whilst it may appear superficially attractive it does nothing to solve the very many problems that do exist in the repairs service and may well make matters significantly worse."
        Amendment No. 68 simply requires the Secretary of State to use his powers
        "only where a landlord has failed within reasonable time to carry out repairs after receiving due notice from the secure tenant."
        In other words, if the tenant has served notice on the local authority that a repair needs to be done, and if the repair is not carried out within a reasonable time, it allows the tenant to have it carried out himself and to charge the local authority. If the Governemt are interested in ensuring that local authorities have an efficient repair service, this is one of the best ways of bringing it about. A local authority will not want tenants to do repairs themselves or

        945
        have them done and then charge the authority because it would be an inconvenience to the housing department, the direct labour department and the local authority generally. If such a provison existed, it would be a great incentive to local authorities to provide an efficient repair and maintenance service.
        Whatever the Minister may think, the council tenants that I meet when canvassing or running advice bureaux do not really want to have to do the repairs themselves or even the right to do them. They pay their rent and they expect the landlord to do the repairs. What we want is to make sure that local authorities provide this efficient repair and maintenance service and that tenants be given the right to do the work themselves and to charge the local authority if this service is not provided.
        The second part of amendment 68 says that
        "the landlord shall from time to time publish a list of approved contractors."
        If the scheme that we are proposing were put into operation, and a secure tenant could get a repair done if the landlord was in default, the landlord should publish a list of approved contractors from whom the tenant would be required to obtain quotations. We do not think that this is unreasonable. Both the tenant and the local authority want to he protected from the inadequate builder who does a shoddy job. This is not an unusual proposal. Local authorities commonly publish lists of approved contractors for the guidance of, for example, owner-occupiers who are given improvement grants.
        Then we go on to say that if a local authority has a direct labour department the tenant must obtain two quotations, one of which must be from the direct labour department. This is not inspired by a doctrinaire desire to protect the public sector and direct labour departments, although I am sure that there are some doctrinaire reasons for the Government's proposals on this clause which will, as they privatise the repair service, destroy direct labour departments. In view of the restrictions that have already been imposed on direct labour departments by the Government, administratively and legislatively, through the 1980 Housing Act, this could be the last straw—or perhaps brick—to break the back of direct labour departments and force them out of existence.
        If direct labour departments are to have a fair chance to survive, it is important that they be given a workload that will enable them to provide continuity of employment and remain in existence in competition with the private sector. However, as council houses are sold, as limits are placed on the work for which direct labour departments can tender, and as housing construction in the public sector diminishes because of the Government's reduction of the housing investment programme, direct labour departments are being squeezed more and more. That has nothing to do with competition. It seems that the Government are frightened of direct labour departments competing fairly with the private sector.
        Will private contractors be invited to provide a tender to a council tenant who wishes a repair to be carried out? If so, why should direct labour departments not be allowed to place a competitive tender as well? If the Government believe in competition, it should surely apply to direct labour departments as well as to private builders.
        Our amendment requires that a local authority tenant should seek at least two quotations, one of which should be from a direct labour department if one exists in the area.
        946
        We have also included the direct labour department to protect both the tenant and the local authority. After all, the local authority will be charged for the cost of the repair. It is appropriate to have a public sector input to prevent such things as price rings and to ensure that groups of builders do not get together, set their own high charges and make hefty profits. Direct labour departments are good at ensuring that the private sector knows that it cannot get up to such tricks. They are there as a check to prevent such things happening.
        In Committee, a Conservative Member said that I did not live in the real world and pointed out that price rings were illegal. However, there are many examples of illegal price fixing. I tabled an early-day motion asking the Secretary of State for the Environment rigorously to investigate a blatant price-fixing ring set up by painting contractors in the north-west. They tried to extort nearly £200,000 from Manchester city council, after getting away with £92,358. The firms concerned clearly connived at sharing out the contracts between them, and charged prices up to four times as much as the estimates given by direct works departments. That Mafia-style approach to tendering was highlighted when all those firms submitted very high tenders after being invited to tender for the painting of a school. Another private firm put in a much lower tender, and was later asked to go on the list.
        That shows that such price rings take place. Without an input from direct labour departments, I am sure that private builders would get together for such a purpose.
        Labour party members, employers of direct labour departments and Labour councillors who sit on housing and direct labour committees have expressed anxiety not only about the Government's proposals but even about the proposals by Labour Members of the Committee to give tenants the right to have a repair service in law. All those people are rightly concerned that even the proposals in amendment No. 68 are likely to take work away from direct labour departments.
        Those who rightly support the public building sector and direct labour departments should consider our proposals to give tenants the right to a decent repair service and the right to have their repairs done and then charge the council landlord, when the landlord is in default, in the context of the fact that this Government seem determined to privatise this whole area. We as Labour Members are trying to safeguard the direct labour departments by ensuring that they are included in any scheme that gives tenants the right to have repairs done. The next Labour Government will introduce a tenants' right to repair in the context of other proposals to revitalise direct labour departments.
        Those who are concerned about direct labour departments are anxious because the base load of work of direct labour departments, on which they depend for their very existence—the repair and maintenance of council houses—will be taken away from them. That work is essential to direct labour departments if they are to survive, because they are restricted in the work that they can take on. At present, they do all council house repairs because they cannot tender for work for other local authorities. They are not allowed to tender for work in the private sector. They cannot do improvement work for owner-occupiers. They cannot compete with Wimpeys or Barratts for private sector schemes.
        Other building concerns which build council houses for local authorities can work in the private sector when

        947
        council house contracts dry up. They can even go abroad. Direct labour departments cannot do any of those things. Under the next Labour Government, that will be changed. We shall legislate to allow direct labour departments to work for other local authorities and to tender, in competition with the private sector, for work in the private sector. I am sure that they will tender and win, and provide a service for the people of Britain, providing the type of competition that is necessary.
        We hope that those who look at our proposals to give tenants the right to repairs will realise the context in which we do so. If the next Labour Goverment give council tenants the right to repairs, it will be done at a time when those direct labour departments are revitalised generally. In the meantime, these amendments are intended not only to safeguard those direct labour departments from a privatisation scheme that the Conservative Government want to introduce, but to safeguard council tenants from what, in my opinion, are ill-thought-out proposals which will not benefit tenants in the long run. Tenants want an efficient repair and maintenance service. They want the right to do repairs themselves only when the local authority fails to carry out those repairs. Tenants would prefer the local authority to do the repairs properly in the first place. The Goverment's clause is likely to have the opposite effect.
        Amendment No. 69 is important if we want to protect council tenants. It is no good having a scheme which does not spell out for council tenants and landlords the landlords' obligations, the repairs that landlords should carry out and the timescale for such repairs.
        9 pm
        It is not possible, as Labour Members wish, to have a scheme whereby tenants can have repairs done when the landlord is in default unless we know of what they would be in default. That is why amendment No. 69 is an essential adjunct to amendment No. 68. If the Government do not accept amendment No. 68, surely there is no reason why they should not accept amendment No. 69, which in no way tries to destroy the Government's attempt at privatisation. Nor does it put direct labour departments back into the picture. It tries to prevent the schemes introduced by the Secretary of State from destroying what exists—the landlord's obligation to do repairs. It requires any scheme to publish and produce a statement of what the landlord is expected to carry out. Whether or not the landlord fails to carry out his obligations, the tenant has the right in law to do the repairs and charge the local authority. For those who prefer the landlord to fulfil his obligations there is a statement within the scheme setting out those obligations and stating what a council tenant should expect from a landlord when making a request to the housing department for a repair to be carried out.
        I cannot see any doctrinaire reason against amendment No. 69, unless the Government want to destroy the tenant's ability to ensure that the landlord makes repairs. It might be that they want to force even more tenants to buy their council houses. If as well as having to pay high rents tenants cannot get their repairs done, they might be encouraged to move. That might be behind the Government's thinking but I hope not. If the Government cannot accept amendment No. 68, I hope they will try to
        948
        accept amendment No. 69 or at least say that something similar can be included when the Bill goes for consideration to another place.
        I hope that I have done four things. I hope that I have shown that the Government's proposals are inadequate and will have the opposite effect to that which they wanted. They will make things worse for the vast majority of tenants rather than better. I hope that I have shown that the proposals of my hon. Friends are not against the council tenant having the right to a decent repair service—rather, the opposite—and that they are fundamental to our belief that council tenants should have the same rights as owner-occupiers, and even more. I hope that I have justified the need to include an element of direct labour involvement for the sake of the tenants and I hope I have allayed the fears of those who are worried about maintaining direct labour departments. Labour Members are putting forward their proposals in that spirit and to ensure that we keep a viable and, in the end, revitalised and thriving public building sector.
        Mr. Stuart Holland: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and the rest of my hon. Friends on tabling these important amendments. The prospect of enabling tenants to carry out repairs with no consideration of the complexity of the problems involved suggests that whoever drafted the Bill had more experience of council houses than he had of council flats of the kind that are typical in my constituency in an inner London borough.
        I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of tenants from one of my housing estates about the repair of doors. The tenants association is seriously considering not only whether a new door should be introduced for the fiats on the estate in question but how to test it properly to make sure that it is effective.
        One of the points that the association made to me is that if the door is so strong that the tenant feels secure, the fire brigade cannot easily gain access, and may not be able to do so. Also, if the door is not properly fitted it may be hazardous for the tenant to go ahead with what amounts to a do-it-yourself door replacement by hiring a private contractor.
        What about other elements of repair, such as a slight modification that may be attractive to those involved? For example, one might block out a tiresome ventilation outlet in a flat through which heat loss has occurred. What are the risks if there is not adequate supervision by the council of private repairs that are being undertaken? If there is adequate supervision, why should not the task have been done by the council in the first place?
        A patchwork of different coloured doors or of different internal repairs does not offend me aesthetically. I am concerned about the safety of tenants, especially in high-rise blocks and landing access blocks if they go ahead with certain repairs that become extensive modifications and obstruct an exit in the case of a fire or access for the fire brigade.
        Another example I can quote is that of floors. It would seem to be a simple matter. If there is something wrong with one's floor, one should call in the contractor to deal with it. In my constituency we have one of the densest estates in the whole of London. It is aptly named the Ethelred estate—apt because we all know one thing and one thing only about Ethelred, that he was perpetually

        949
        unready. When the estate was built the Tory GLC was determined to bring in private rather than public contractors.
        The floors on the estate were to have in-built central heating and certain compounds that depend on precise specifications. Competition being what it is, and it is often rather ragged at the edges of the market, the contractors who undertook to install the floors in two houses—Groome House and Michelson House—skimped on the specifications. As a result, shortly after coming into their flats, tenants found that their chairs started to sink into the floor and the bonded cement began to turn into sand. Having done so, because the floor was warm, it immediately became infected by all kinds of exciting little creatures which were no doubt of great interest to a biologist but were not welcome to the tenants of the flats.
        What was to be done about the repairs? I am not claiming that Lambeth council moved with lightning speed to undertake them. However, there was a real problem because this new type of bonded floor offered by the private contractor had not been extensively supplied before. It would be difficult to remedy the problem when the initial specifications had not been met. But allegedly a range of solutions was available.
        The mind boggles when we hear Saatchi and Saatchi tell us that mass unemployment really works. The mind also boggles at the company who thought of the brand name epoxy resin, known to many of my constituents as "poxy resin". "Poxy resin" was the recommended solution for the floor in question. "Poxy resin" was applied in a test case. I am glad that it was applied in a test case in the flats in Groome and Michelson houses on the Ethelred estate. It was rapidly found that the effects of "poxy resin" could not only be scented at several yards but had noxious consequences.
        Clause 21 specifies that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, allow tenants to carry out repairs and recover the cost. What would have happened in the Groome and Michelson flats if "poxy resin" had really caught on? One can imagine one neighbour turning to the next and saying, "We have got the stuff we need. It is called 'poxy resin.' Lay it down or get yourself a contractor to set it in.". Everyone would be knee deep in "poxy resin." One can imagine the effects of introducing it if, at the same time, tenants happened to get in private contractors to fit the heavy doors which are so strongly recommended as a security measure. One has a picture of tenants caught with "poxy resin" behind doors that cannot be opened because fly-by-night contractors have not properly fitted them.
        I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is sensitive about the issues that affect inner London boroughs and constituencies such as mine. He and the Secretary of State may say that there is a remedy through the market or the courts. Tell that to the poor citizens and tenants of Groome and Michelson houses. When the floors went through and they asked the council to sue the contractors, lo and behold, the very reason why the specification of floors had been skimped in the first place had resulted in the disappearance of the contractors. In other words, far from the profit motive being the guarantee of good customer service, with financial difficulties and the declining rate of profit that faced the small contracting firm, it skimped on the specification and has gone bust. Therefore, there was no redress. Solving the problems of those premises involves the entire reconstruction of the floors.
        950
        We have had doors and floors, but what about something else that seems really simple, like a ceiling? The architect of this clause seems to have seen either semi-detached properties or council houses only. If he cared to come round and look in my constituency, either at the Hemans estate or parts of other estates, he would find flat roofs.
        If the ceiling inside one's flat is leaking and it is damaging one's furniture and one is covering up the furniture, not using the room, and one applies to the council for a rebate because of loss of use of a room, one can at least get some money from the council and bring some pressure to bear. One may even engage the democratic process and get hold of one's councillor or Member of Parliament to get something done. But what happens if one gets in another fly-by-night cowboy builder? He might be much more ready to say that something can be done about the ceiling than mention the roof. He may say, "Yes sir, yes madam, we will see to it immediately. We will have someone in this afternoon or tomorrow morning and sort it out."
        It is obvious that if such a builder sorts out the symptoms rather than the causes of the damage, the damp will come through time and again. In key repairs that affect the inside of flats, we do not need a new slate on the roof or the unblocking of a drain but a new roof and new drainage system. Many council estates that were constructed in the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s have now come to the end of their natural life and need major modernisation and rehabilitation programmes.
        The result for tenants who might, misguidedly, take advantage of the Government's proposal if this Bill goes on the statute book, because it appears to give them quicker repairs, will be not reduced costs and better service but, probably, higher costs. There will probably be higher direct costs and certainly higher indirect costs.
        What will happen if a council is planning to modernise an estate? Where is the provision in the Bill that takes into account the decanting of an estate by a council? If such decanting occurs, the tenant may believe that he has the right to call in someone to carry out the repairs and to send the bill to the council. But what happens if the council contests the bill? Who, in the Lord's name, will determine what is a reasonable cost that does not exceed the costs that would have been incurred had the landlord carried out the repairs?
        9.15 pm
        There would need to be a dual accounting system to determine the cost of the repair. Not only would a private contractor carry it out, but someone from the council must evaluate its cost. We may be told that the council will have a rule of thumb test. Tell that to the tenant, when Johnny cowboy comes by and says, "Yes, madam. There is no problem. We shall do your sink top tomorrow". He may do the sink top the next day, but he may leave it detached 1½in from the wall at one end and 3½in from the nearest working surface. The tenant will end up with an unsatisfactory repair and will probably wish to take action against the builder, who by then—as in the case of the Groome and Michelson contractors—may have gone bust. The tenant may have to claim from the council a price charged by a private contractor well in excess of the real direct cost of the operation.
        I talk with some experience of the difficulties involved. It was pointed out to me recently by a convener of the

        951
        direct labour organisation in my constituency that the replacement or repair of a sink top was not a simple operation. Thanks to the freedom of choice that we have through the market mechanism, one can apparently get 15 different sorts of sink top just for starters. When I had a sink top fitted, the commercial contractor assured me that the top that he supplied would fit exactly over the two cupboard units, but of course it did not. What happens when it does not fit? What happens when a private contractor does not give good service? How can one evaluate a normal cost, even for something as simple as putting in a sink top? One cannot do that, because it depends on the sort of top needed, whether new woodwork must be installed or whether the back facing of the sink must also be replaced.
        I can assume only that the person who drafted this legislation has not only never lived in a council flat or house but has never seen the inside of one. That thought comes to me time and again when I see people commuting through my constituency. They look at some of the nice neo-Georgian exteriors of estates such as Vauxhall gardens estate, which overlooks Kennington park, and may think that they always look nice because the windows are painted. However, if they went inside those flats, they would see the real problems that exist.
        How can we determine a reasonable cost? We have recently had a classic illustration of this problem. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)—he is still only just the Member for that constituency—made a self-congratulatory speech on the amendment, which he assured the House, without waiting for its comments, would be of incalculable benefit to thousands of his constituents. The hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in the Chamber, attacked Camden council for not reducing heating charges in full. What are the charges and how can they be applied in full? There is to be a remedy in the courts. The Minister has said that he is delighted that he will not have to decide what is a reasonable charge; it will be the courts' decision. If the courts' decision of what is reasonable for London Transport fares is anything to go by, then tenants' repairs will be open to mayhem.
        There are one or two learned gentlemen in the other place to whom I should like to put a simple question because I am sure that it will land on their desks for them to decide. What does a judge understand by the concept of externality? What is the externality that the judge has to take into account in assessing reasonable costs to be paid by the council? If he is Oxbridge-trained, and almost certainly he is, and if he has done greats or politics, philosophy and economics he will clearly understand that it is something outside rather than inside—external rather than internal. However, if he has made his way from the labouring classes he might not view it that way. I have not noticed many judges recently making it from the labouring classes.
        A judge may not know that the relevance of direct and indirect costs is crucial to this clause as to whether there are benefits from having public, municipal or collective building agencies which have externalities, can spread their services and have expertise in evaluating buildings. Such bodies will know, when it comes to evaluating an internal leak, that something is wrong with the building's flat roof. They will know that a problem has arisen time
        952
        and time again with an internal pipe. A private contractor will not know that. This means that instead of a fly-by-night cowboy patching up the job and leaving it the direct labour organisation can deal with it.
        How do we assess overheads? Private contractors who want to obtain a bid do not include their overhead costs in the price. In some cases they do not even make provision for the most basic national insurance contributions. When giving their direct labour costs they do not make allowances for indirect costs such as rental and other changes.
        I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) but I would go further and say not only that quotations should be required from direct labour organisations but that there should be a statutory requirement that when bids are made over a certain size for repairs they should be cleared by the relevant council committee and that its members should be satisfied that indirect as well as the direct costs have been included.
        During the last election campaign there was a massive poster, as big as the doors of this Chamber, in Kennington park road courtesy of CABIN. It showed a collapsing house. It said:
        "Labour plans to nationalise your industry."
        That was a patent lie. The poster implied that houses only fell down in the public sector. On my estate the chronic troubles which have arisen are due to private contractors.
        We need tenants' rights and local control, but we do not need private cowboy builders ripping off the public. That is why I support the amendment.
        Mr. Cartwright: I hope that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will forgive me if I do not follow him through all the mysteries of externality. It is not a matter regularly on the lips of my constituents. If he referred to my constituents as coming from the labouring classes, he might get a rather rude reaction from many of them.
        It is right to spend a little time discussing repairs, especially for local authority housing. All hon. Members who represent areas with large numbers of council properties know that that issue is one of the major causes of frustration among council tenants. They are annoyed most of all by the bureaucracy of the operation of local authorities. I am not making a political point—it affects local authorities of all political persuasions.
        When my constituents first report a fault that needs to be repaired, along comes someone from the housing department. It is probably the estate officer, who looks at the problem and says that he will place an order with the works department. That is a straightforward matter, and one has merely to wait for the works department to sort it out.
        However, if the problem is a little unusual, the estate officer consults the technical section of the housing department, which examines the problem. That section refers the problem to the architect's department, which in turn might have to consult external consultants with expertise in that area. All that takes time. Eventually, an order is placed with the works department. That procedure means a great many visits, which span a great many weeks. A number of promises are made, but they are usually not kept. Even when the order has been issued to the works department, there is the problem of different trades being involved. I know of cases in my constituency

        953
        where one trade installs window frames and another fits the glass. Sometimes people are left for many weeks with window frames with no glass. That sort of catastrophe affects the constituents of many hon. Members.
        How will such problems be helped by the approach laid down in clause 21, and the amendments that have been proposed? There are two separate approaches to the problem. The Government believe that the whole operation of repairs should be private from the start. Once the council has approved the repair, the tenant is on his own. He can do the repair himself, bring in a firm to do whatever he wishes. It is a private arrangement. However, it still involves council bureaucracy. The council must still examine the problem, agree that a repair is necessary, decide what sort of repair is involved and what the cost will be so that the tenant knows how much he can spend. The tenant has to find a contractor. The Government's approach does not provide for any approved list of contractors. The tenant can give the work to someone that he has picked out of the advertisements in the weekly paper.
        As I said in Committee, it is no part of my case to suggest that the entire building industry is filled from top to bottom with cowboys. To say that would be nonsensical. But we have all experienced a number of cases that suggest that there are some unscrupulous operators in the building industry. I put it no higher than that. We all know of cases where people have done some unpleasant things, often to the elderly, and then rapidly disappeared. There is a propensity in the building industry for firms to disappear as rapidly as they appear.
        It is common sense to say that if we give tenants the right to bring in private contractors, there must be some degree of control over the operation. There must be some proof of quality and reliability from the firms which will carry out the repairs to council property.
        The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made a valid point when he said that tenants would rather not be involved in all the aggravation and hassle. Tenants take the simple view that they pay for their repairs in their rents and they expect the council to deliver the service for which they are paying. In an ideal world, they would far rather that the council did the job, and did it properly, than that they should have to argue with contractors and deal with all the problems and bother.
        We are faced with a choice between the Government's approach to the problem of repairs, which is that it should be tackled privately from the word go, and the official Opposition's approach, which is that the council must try to do the repairs, but if the council falls down on the job the tenant must have a right to bring in an approved private contractor. I prefer the Opposition's approach. I believe that we should put pressure on councils to be efficient and effective. If the local authority knows that if it does not do the job properly the tenant has the right to have the job done by somebody else and charge the council, that will be a pressure wholly for the good.
        9.30 pm
        It is equally sensible that when a tenant takes tenders for a job the direct labour organisation—if there is one—should be among the tenderers. The direct labour organisation has a great contribution to make so long as it is efficient and effective and is able to stand up in the market place against private enterprise. It is sensible that the direct labour organisation should have to compete
        954
        against private contractors in the market for such repair work. In passing, I should like to say that although I support the Labour party's approach I should be happier if more Labour authorities operated schemes of that kind rather than seeking to do everything themselves and often doing it rather badly.
        Faced with a choice between the totally private operation envisaged in the clause and the provision in the amendment, that if the local authority cannot or will not do the job properly the tenant must have the right to apply pressure, I prefer the second course. I shall therefore support the amendment.
        Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Anyone listening to this debate would assume that the scheme was a Government initiative. I hear from my hon. Friends that the whole reform proposed over the last months with regard to tenants' rights to repairs was promoted by the Opposition, and that the Government took it up at a late date by adding this clause in Committee. I hope that those who follow our proceedings will realise that this was a Labour initiative, based on the views that we have spelt out on many occasions in our policy documents.
        I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) moved amendment No. 68 because, as the House knows, he has great experience of housing management and control in Manchester where he built up a substantial reputation as chairman of the Manchester district housing committee. He brings to the amendment the value of many years of daily involvement in the area of repairs in relation to secure tenancies and properties.
        I am not sure how it is possible for the Government to table a clause which refers to the making of a regulation to set up a scheme entitling secure tenants to the rights laid out in the clause without drawing the attention of the House to what that scheme may entail. Hon. Members cannot rationally discuss the Government's proposals without knowing what they intend. Our amendments may be ill founded. The Government may intend to comply with the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment in the scheme when it is published. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us whether our amendment will form the basis of the scheme that I hope he will put to the House, but there is no guarantee even of that, as it seems that the Government can introduce the regulations without seeking approval of the contents of the scheme in a debate on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the Minister will explain the procedure that he intends to pursue so that we may be assured that we shall have the opportunity to debate the scheme when it is finally produced.
        Lines 10 to 13 refer to the scheme giving entitlement to tenants as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). Our amendment seeks to qualify the Government's intention as set out in the Bill by giving the local authority the chance to do the work before a private firm is called in.
        Many people in this country—not just those of my political persuasion—may regard local authority repair services in the wider sense and the personnel involved in those services as important services which should be retained. The Government provisions prejudice the possibility of retaining those services where there is a wider responsibility to the community under current local government arrangements. It may be argued that it is in the public interest to maintain a fully occupied and

        955
        efficient repair service within the local authority to fulfil those wider responsibilities, but the Government are prejudicing that possibility.
        Secondly, we wish to ensure that the local authority draws up an approved list so that the wide boys and the cowboys do not have access to repair works that we know are important to many council tenants and sensitive matters to our electorates.
        Every day of the week, the London evening papers carry advertisements under general classifications advertising the services of so-called experts in many areas of activity. People who ring the telephone numbers and invite such experts to their properties very often find that those who arrive are cowboys incapable of carrying out the work that they advertise. I was conned on one occasion myself and I do not regard my ability to select as entirely without foundation. If they could pull the wool over my eyes, it is unlikely that many of the tenants who invite these people into their homes will be able to select and reject and to ensure that the people carrying out repairs for them are suitable.
        An approved list will at least ensure that local authorities establish and make known to their tenants the people of quality and substance in repair work. Cowboy operators exist in every part of the United Kingdom and often break the law in many ways. They often do not pay national insurance contributions, do not pay their taxes and are subject to no professional disciplines. Consequently, their activities merely prejudice the wider interests of our constituents. An approved list is therefore essential.
        Finally, on the right of direct labour organisations to quote, the Government introduced a small measure some weeks ago to reduce the national insurance contribution for private sector companies. In the debate on that, the problems of the Liverpool direct labour organisation were mentioned. There is a feeling in the country that the direct labour organisations in the major cities are being deliberately obstructed by the Government and their activities prejudiced by the Government's dogmatic approach. Refusal by the Government to support our amendment today will be read by those who support the operation of DLOs and recognise their importance in local authorities as a further sign of the Government's prejudice and ideological dogma in relation to those important organisations within local authorities.
        Mrs. Ann Taylor: All Members who have spoken to the amendment this evening—and only Opposition Members have done so—have expressed considerable concern about the ability of council house tenants to exercise their right to have satisfactory repairs to their properties. Those hon. Members who have spoken referred to our debates in Committee and to the Opposition's amendment, which went a great deal further than the Minister's amendment, but was rejected. The amendment contained some of the safeguards that would be necessary if the system of improving the repairs procedure is to be successful in the future. While we are concerned mainly with tenants in the public sector, we should like to see this extended to the private sector. We acknowledge that repair rights exist in public health Acts and in housing Acts generally.
        All hon. Members have experience from their constituencies of council house tenants who have been
        956
        dissatisfied either at the lengh of time it has taken for repairs to be completed or with the quality of the repairs. We all know that, especially at present, many local authorities are under a great deal of financial pressure from the Government and are not able to provide the service to their council house tenants that they would like to provide. The amendment we moved in Committee, which the Minister rejected, was aimed at giving a better deal to all council house tenants, in contrast to the proposal put forward by the Minister in Committee that we are discussing today.
        We have five worries about the Government's proposals. First, the Government are giving the appearance of helping council house tenants but that raises a false hope because the Minister's scheme will not be of great assistance to the tenants in need of help. Secondly, under the Minister's scheme, there will be no control over the quality of the repairs made to council properties. Thirdly, the council house tenant will have the work done, will pay for the work and then recover the cost from the local authority. That is unsatisfactory. We all realise that few council house tenants would have the funds readily available to pay for a repair to be done even though afterwards they could recover the money from the local authority.
        Fourthly, we are concerned about clause 21(3)(b) which suspends the landlord's obligation under a repairing covenant while any defect is being remedied under this system. In other words, if council tenants have repair problems such as those graphically outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) or of the type described by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), and decide to take advantage of the scheme, any other repair problems that come to light while the first problem is being dealt with by a private contractor will not be dealt with by the authority.
        As the Minister's scheme is written, the repair obligations of the landlord are suspended for the time that it takes to settle the repair. That is unsatisfactory and dangerous for the rights of tenants. We are concerned that some local authorities may try to use this part of the scheme as a means of escaping their repair obligations overall by trying to persuade tenants to take on some responsibility for repairs, thereby suspending all the repair obligations that should be covered by the proposed legislation.
        9.45 pm
        Our fifth concern relates to direct labour organisations. Many of us fear that one of the reasons why the Government are promoting this scheme, which incorporates no controls on the quality of work or on who does the work and does not write DLOs into the scheme, is that they want to continue their attack to undermine DLOs. The Government, in other legislation, have already undermined their position and they intend to continue doing so. In only the past few days they have issued yet another press notice in which they explain how they will continue to turn the screw on DLOs.
        The organisations are operating under many artificial constraints. They are expected to make a profit on their trading account of a size that few private building companies are able to achieve. They have to put out work to tender in a completely artificial manner and carry all the costs of that procedure themselves. The Government are deliberately making it difficult for DLOs, in the hope of

        957
        squeezing them out of existence. That is one of our objections to the Government's approach to the scheme and one of the reasons why we feel that the new clause that we introduced in Committee proposed a much better scheme for local authorities and local authority tenants.
        Everyone who has contributed to the debate has agreed that in recent years council house tenants have had a raw deal. Over the past four years rents have risen by almost 120 per cent., and there are more increases due next month as a result of the Government's policy. Rents, as a proportion of the average wage, have increased considerably since the Government have been in office. I understand that 308 of the 367 housing authorities will be making a profit out of their council tenants and a profit on their housing revenue account.
        Under this pressure, council house tenants are rightly demanding a better service from local authorities. We want to see them given a better service but we do not want schemes proposed to council tenants that mislead them, such as that which the Government have devised. In reality, their scheme is not an improvement. It fails to give tenants rights that they will be able to exercise. We are concerned that the Government are making promises which, in the end, will be meaningless to tenants and which will not give them the better service which they should have and which they deserve.
        If the Bill is enacted with the clause as it stands, many cowboys will move into council house repair. The Minister has done nothing to control the quality of repairs. My hon. Friends have given examples of how cowboys can make many costly mistakes in the private sector. They have explained how cowboys or poor builders have made many building mistakes, which subsequently have been costly to local authorities. Probably we all have examples of cowboys who have operated in the building industry. There are those who have put asphalt floors on rotting wooden floorboards and disappeared before the asphalt has seeped through to create a new problem. The Minister is creating a charter for cowboys. Their work will cause council tenants far more headaches in future. The Government have introduced a sham proposal.
        Sir George Young: Opposition Members have made enormously heavy weather of a relatively simple proposition that most council tenants could easily understand and which many of them are anxious to have available. What the Government are doing is basically giving tenants a choice. Where a local authority has failed to carry out repairs in time the tenant will have the option of doing the work himself and getting the money back from the local authority. That is a relatively clear proposition which will commend itself to most tenants.
        Having listened to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), I wonder what happens at her advice bureaux and whether she has the same experience as other hon. Members. On Fridays or on Saturday after Saturday we have a long catalogue of complaints from local authority tenants who have waited day after day for the housing department to put right relatively simple repairs. All we are doing in the Bill is giving tenants the choice to have the work done themselves, if they want to. If they do not want to avail themselves of the opportunity, they need not, and the local authority will have the obligation to put the matter right.
        958
        Opposition Members are trying to foist on local authority tenants a poor imitation of what the Government have proposed. It is hedged around with all sorts of qualifications that make it virtually worthless.
        We had an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), who managed to make a simple subject not just complex but unintelligible. He led us through a whole series of imaginative scenarios involving Georgian exteriors, epoxy resin, fire resistant doors and ventilation blocks, ending up with externalities, which somehow in his view had an enormous bearing on the subject.
        I must point out to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and to other hon. Members who have questioned what the Government are doing that what we have suggested is happening. In the London borough of Havering a scheme has been introduced along the lines of the one which the Government propose should be made available nationally. It is intelligible to local authority tenants and to those who work in local authorities. It is saving tens of thousands of pounds for ratepayers in Havering. All the red herrings that have been introduced about inapplicability or complications are rubbish. The scheme actually works. What we are doing is making it available to local authorities throughout the country.
        The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked how it would operate. I think it would be helpful if he looked at c. 1234 and 1235 of the Official Report of the proceedings of the Committee on 24 February, where there is an outline of how it would operate.
        The procedure for making the regulations will be under section 151 of the Housing Act 1980 and will be subject to negative resolution.
        In amendment No. 68, it is clear that the Opposition are bent on restricting the tenant's right of repair to such an extent that it would become almost useless. Their amendment would build in delaying factors so that repairs might be unattended to for much longer than under the Government's proposal.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
        Sir George Young: I am not giving way; I must make progress.
        Not only is the reasonable time like a piece of elastic, but there could be further delay because of the need to get quotations from tenderers, not least from the direct labour organisation. In any case, where a landlord has failed to perform, tenants already have common law rights. The Opposition amendment adds nothing to those rights.
        The Government's proposal is flexible enough to allow tenants to carry out repairs themselves. Of course, there will be limitations on the type of repairs on safety grounds, but the Opposition amendment entirely denies tenants the right to do the work themselves. As the hon. Lady said in Committee:
        "We think that the tenant should be limited in his choice." —[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 February 1983:, c. 1241.]
        They had suggested that the tenant should not be able to do the work himself but should have to go out to tender, with one of the tenderers being the DLO. However, it is because the DLO has not done the work in the first place that the tenant will be interested in doing it to himself. What would happen if the tenant went out to tender and the DLO submitted the lowest tender but still did not do

        959
        the work? The tenant would be back where he started and he would have wasted two or three weeks. So from the tenant's viewpoint he would be far worse off than under our proposal.
        On amendment No. 69 I can be slightly more conciliatory. The House will know that we embarked on consultation arrangements with the landlord organisations before we laid the regulations under the Bill. The provisions sought in the amendment will be subject to discussion within the consultation. If we think it useful to provide a requirement along the lines of amendment No. 69, we shall consider whether this can be incorporated in the regulations.
        It is worth reminding the House that public sector landlords already have a duty to tell tenants of their repairing obligations, as set out in section 32 of the Housing Act 1961. This explains what landlords' obligations are. Landlords may take on additional obligations in their tenancy agreements.
        Section 41 of the Housing Act 1980 requires public sector landlords to publish up-to-date information about their secure tenancies in simple terms. Among the information to be supplied is the effect of the landlords' repairing obligations. The discussions that we are having with landlords' associations will lead to certain categories of repairs being excluded from an absolute right for tenants to carry them out themselves. There are obvious cases where safety is a paramount factor. I do not wish to anticipate what the other categories might be.
        I accept that the Opposition's proposal for landlords to publish time limits, within which the landlord undertakes to carry out repairs where the absolute right would not apply, might be useful. We shall explore this possibility with the local authority associations. Against that background, I hope that amendment No. 69 will not be pursued.
        Amendment No. 68 would be a fraud on tenants. It would not give them the rights that they need and which I think the House is anxious that they should have. I hope that, if amendment No. 68 is pressed to a Division, it will be resisted.
        Mr. Allan Roberts: I thank the Minister for what he has said about amendment No. 69. As the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the intentions of the amendment, the Opposition will not be pressing it to a vote. However, we feel that amendment No. 68 is crucial and that the Minister has failed to understand the necessity for it. Nowhere does clause 21 state that the tenants will have the right to get the repair done where the landlord has failed to carry out the repair in time. The clause is a blatant attempt at privatisation. It will enable the private sector to move in, and repairs to be done, whether or not the landlord is running an efficient repair and maintenance service and whether or not the landlord has failed to carry out the repair in time.
        The Minister blames the direct labour department for any repair that is not adequately carried out by the local authority. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that many local authorities already have their repair services run by private contractors and that private contractors fail to carry out repairs on time. The Sefton metropolitan district council, which covers my constituency, is trying to privatise the repair service. Private contractors fail to
        960
        carry out the repairs. Tenants in my constituency would love to go to the direct labour department to ask it to tender, to carry out the work and to charge the local authority. In that way, they would be able to get an efficient repair done by a building concern that is concerned about the tenants and about the council houses they are maintaining.
        The Minister has failed to understand the concept of programme maintenance. The most efficient way of maintaining council houses and ensuring that the need to carry out many repairs does not arise, with the benefits that this brings to tenants and the local authority, is to operate on a programme basis. The Bill's proposals, if implemented on a widespread basis, destroy any possibility of local authorities planning programme maintenance in an efficient and effective manner for the benefit of tenants.
        I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) not to blame the civil servants for the clause or to claim that they do not know about council properties. It is Ministers who are responsible for the clause. It is blatantly political. Ministers have obviously instructed civil servants, who may or may not understand what council housing is about, to draw up legislation that will privatise the repair and maintenance services of local authorities and hit direct labour departments so that the Government's friends in the private sector can benefit from the public purse. It is all being done in a way which will be detrimental and not beneficial to tenants.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 262.

        Division No. 100]

        [10 pm

        AYES

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Abse, Leo

        Dixon, Donald

        Allaun, Frank

        Dobson, Frank

        Alton, David

        Dormand, Jack

        Anderson, Donald

        Douglas, Dick

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Dubs, Alfred

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Dunnett, Jack

        Ashton, Joe

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

        Eadie, Alex

        Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

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

        Beith, A. J.

        English, Michael

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Ennals, Rt Hon David

        Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

        Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Booth, Rt Hon Albert

        Ewing, Harry

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Faulds, Andrew

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Field, Frank

        Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

        Flannery, Martin

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Ford, Ben

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

        Foulkes, George

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

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

        Buchan, Norman

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Freud, Clement

        Canavan, Dennis

        Garrett, John (Norwich S)

        Cant, R. B.

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Carmichael, Neil

        Golding, John

        Cartwright, John

        Graham, Ted

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Grimond, Rt Hon J.

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

        Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

        Cohen, Stanley

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

        Coleman, Donald

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        Haynes, Frank

        Crowther, Stan

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Cryer, Bob

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

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

        Dalyell, Tam

        Home Robertson, John

        Davidson, Arthur

        Hooley, Frank

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

        Howell, Rt Hon D.

        Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

        Hoyle, Douglas

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

        Huckfield, Les

        Deakins, Eric

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        961

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Rooker, J. W.

        Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

        Roper, John

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

        Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        John, Brynmor

        Rowlands, Ted

        Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

        Ryman, John

        Jones, Dan (Burnley)

        Sandelson, Neville

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Sever, John

        Kerr, Russell

        Sheerman, Barry

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

        Lambie, David

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Lamond, James

        Short, Mrs Renée

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

        Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

        Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Silverman, Julius

        Litherland, Robert

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lyon, Alexander (York)

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Soley, Clive

        McElhone, Mrs Helen

        Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

        McKelvey, William

        Spriggs, Leslie

        McTaggart, Robert

        Stallard, A. W.

        Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

        Stoddart, David

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Strang, Gavin

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Straw, Jack

        Meacher, Michael

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        Mikardo, Ian

        Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Tilley, John

        Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

        Torney, Tom

        Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

        Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

        Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

        Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

        Newens, Stanley

        Wardell, Gareth

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Welsh, Michael

        Ogden, Eric

        White, Frank R.

        O'Halloran, Michael

        White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Whitlock, William

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Park, George

        Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

        Parker, John

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

        Parry, Robert

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

        Penhaligon, David

        Wilson, William (C'try SE)

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Winnick, David

        Price, C. (Lewisham W)

        Woodall, Alec

        Richardson, Jo

        Wright, Sheila

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

        Mr. George Morton and

        Robertson, George

        Mr. Ron Leighton.

        Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

        Alexander, Richard

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Brotherton, Michael

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

        Ancram, Michael

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Arnold, Tom

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

        Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

        Buck, Antony

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Budgen, Nick

        Banks, Robert

        Burden, Sir Frederick

        Bendall, Vivian

        Butcher, John

        Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

        Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Chapman, Sydney

        Best, Keith

        Churchill, W. S.

        Bevan, David Gilroy

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

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Blackburn, John

        Clegg, Sir Walter

        Body, Richard

        Cockeram, Eric

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Colvin, Michael

        Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

        Cope, John

        Bowden, Andrew

        Cormack, Patrick

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Corrie, John

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Bright, Graham

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Brinton, Tim

        Critchley, Julian

        962

        Crouch, David

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        McCrindle, Robert

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        MacGregor, John

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        MacKay, John (Argyll)

        Durant, Tony

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

        Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

        McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

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

        Eggar, Tim

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Major, John

        Eyre, Reginald

        Marland, Paul

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Faith, Mrs Sheila

        Mates, Michael

        Farr, John

        Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

        Finsberg, Geoffrey

        Mawby, Ray

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

        Mayhew, Patrick

        Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

        Mellor, David

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Forman, Nigel

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Moate, Roger

        Gardner, Sir Edward

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Moore, John

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Morgan, Geraint

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Morris, M, (N'hampton S)

        Gow, Ian

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

        Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

        Mudd, David

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

        Murphy, Christopher

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Myles, David

        Grist, Ian

        Neale, Gerrard

        Grylls, Michael

        Needham, Richard

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Neubert, Michael

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Newton, Tony

        Hannam, John

        Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Hastings, Stephen

        Osborn, John

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Parris, Matthew

        Henderson, Barry

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        Hicks, Robert

        Patten, John (Oxford)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Pawsey, James

        Holland, Philip (Carlton)

        Percival, Sir Ian

        Hooson, Tom

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Hordern, Peter

        Pollock, Alexander

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

        Porter, Barry

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Prior, Rt Hon James

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

        Rathbone, Tim

        Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

        Rees-Davies, W. R.

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Renton, Tim

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

        Ridley, Hon Nicholas

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Rossi, Hugh

        Knox, David

        Rost, Peter

        Lang, Ian

        Royle, Sir Anthony

        Langford-Holt, Sir John

        Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

        Latham, Michael

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Lee, John

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Le Marchant, Spencer

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Shepherd, Richard

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Silvester, Fred

        Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

        Sims, Roger

        Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Loveridge, John

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Luce, Richard

        Speed, Keith

        963

        Speller, Tony

        Waddington, David

        Spence, John

        Wakeham, John

        Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Sproat, Iain

        Walker, B. (Perth)

        Squire, Robin

        Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

        Stainton, Keith

        Wall, Sir Patrick

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Waller, Gary

        Stanley, John

        Walters, Dennis

        Steen, Anthony

        Ward, John

        Stevens, Martin

        Warren, Kenneth

        Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

        Watson, John

        Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

        Wells, Bowen

        Stokes, John

        Wheeler, John

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

        Tapsell, Peter

        Whitney, Raymond

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Wickenden, Keith

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Williams, D.(Montgomery)

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Thompson, Donald

        Wolfson, Mark

        Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Mr. Carol Mather and

        Viggers, Peter

        Mr. Robert Boscawen.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Ten o'clock.
        Amendment made: No. 55, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
        'Heating charges
        41B.—(1) In this section—
        "heating authority" means any of the following, namely a local authority, a development corporation, the Commission for the New Towns or the Development Board for Rural Wales which—

        (a) operates a generating station or other installation for producing heat; and

        (b) supplies heat produced at that installation to any premises;

        "heating charge" means an amount payable to a heating authority in respect of heat so produced and so supplied whether or not, in the case of heat supplied to premises let by the authority, it is payable as part of the rent;
        "heating costs" means expenses incurred by a heating authority in operating a generating station or other installation for producing heat;
        and a secure tenant is one to whom this section applies if a heating authority supplies heat produced at such an installation to the dwelling-house of which he is such a tenant.
        (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require heating authorities to adopt such methods for determining any heating charges payable by secure tenants to whom this section applies as will secure that the proportion of heating costs borne by each of those tenants is no greater than is reasonable.
        (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for entitling secure tenants to whom this section applies, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, to require the heating authorities concerned—

        (a) to furnish to them, in such form as may be prescribed by the regulations, such information as to heating charges and heating costs as may be so prescribed; and

        (b) where any such information has been so furnished, to afford them reasonable facilities for inspecting the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the information and for taking copies or extracts from them.

        (4) Regulations under this section may make such procedural, incidental, supplementary and transitional provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
        (5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, regulations under this section may provide for any question arising under the regulations to be referred to and determined by the county court.
        964
        (6) Any reference in this section to heat produced at an installation includes a reference to steam produced from, and air and water heated by, heat so produced'.—[Sir George Young.]

      Clause 24

        GIVING AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN INITIAL NOTICE
        Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 23, line 38, leave out
        'provision of Part II of the 1936 Act'
        and insert 'enactment'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
        Sir George Young: Government amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 are drafting amendments.
        An important aspect of the present building control system, and one that will continue to be important under the new private certification proposals, is the group of controls that are outside the building regulations themselves but whose operation is triggered by the depositing of plans for building regulations approval. These controls are exercised by local authorities, and are generally known as the linked powers. They deal with such matters as building in short-lived materials and building over sewers.
        Under private certification these powers will remain with the local authority, and it is therefore important to ensure that there is a satisfactory mechanism for triggering them in the case of privately certified developments, where the local authority will not get plans deposited with it in the ordinary way.
        The Bill as introduced was defective in this respect, and these amendments put that right. The amendments will ensure that the initial notices served by private certifiers will be accompanied by all the information that authorities need to operate all the relevant linked powers, including those linked powers in local Acts, such as the Cumbria Act 1982, which allow conditional approval of plans to ensure the safety of parking places in buildings. Local authorities will be able to impose conditions on developments using the powers in their own Acts or in the general enactments, just as they can now under the present system.
        The first two amendments substitute the term "enactment" for the reference to part II of the 1936 Act, and amendment No. 44 defines the meaning of "enactment" as including local Acts.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 27

        PLANS CERTIFICATES
        Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 29, leave out lines 9 to 13.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 26 to 30, and 40.
        Sir George Young: This group of amendments is consequential upon the new rights to obtain a determination from the Secretary of State, on payment of a fee, under clause 27(2) and clause 40(2), when a dispute about plans has arisen regarding the application of the proposed new building regulations.
        In the Bill as introduced there was a provision giving a right to obtain such a determination, but it was limited

        965
        in two respects. It could be used only when the dispute specifically concerned the use of approved documents and when the dispute was between the developer and the local authority.
        In the light of comments made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and representations made by the construction industry we have removed both these limitations, so that determinations will be available regarding the application of the regulations generally, and also when the disagreement is between a developer and an approved inspector. We think it reasonable to charge a fee for that service in order to deter frivolous applications and to recover costs.
        10.15 pm
        In order to remove the previous limitations we have provided in clause 27(2) that a person in dispute with an approved inspector as to whether plans are in conformity with the building regulations may apply to the Secretary of State for a determination. That position would arise when a developer had asked the approved inspector for a plans certificate under clause 27(1) and he was unable to give it.
        Where the dispute is with a local authority, it will arise when it has rejected plans deposited under section 64(1) of the Public Health Act 1936 on the grounds that they are defective or show that proposed work would contravene the building regulations. Accordingly, we have provided in clause 40(2) and in an amendment to section 64(3) of the 1936 Act a right to apply to the Secretary of State for a determination.
        At the same time we are repealing the existing right of appeal to a magistrates' court for a determination. The courts do not have much expertise in technical building matters and the provision has been little used. The construction industry and the professions agree that the new right of appeal to the Secretary of State will be much more useful.
        The group of amendments under consideration are consequential. The main amendment in the group is amendment No. 27. Its purpose is to ensure that an applicant who has been given a determination on the application of the building regulations by the Secretary of State will still be able to appeal to the High Court on a point of law.
        The substance of the amendments was agreed by the Standing Committee but the amendments made at that stage are defective. They are also split between clauses 27 and 40. The amendment puts them all together in clause 46. The remaining amendments in the group are consequential. They will ensure that all the provisions for new building regulations and the new procedures for determinations of their application will be brought into operation at the same time.
        Amendment agreed to

      Clause 40
        CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING REGULATIONS
        Amendment made: No. 26, in page 41, leave out lines 1 to 4.— [Sir George Young.]
      Clause 46

        REPEALS
        Amendment made: No. 27, in page 42, line 13, at beginning insert—
        '(1) Section 69(3) of the 1974 Act (appeals against certain decisions of the Secretary of State) shall be amended as follows—
        (a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
        "(b) on a reference under section 64 of the 1936 Act or section 27 of the Housing and Building Control Act 1983;";
        (b) after the words "local authority", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the person approved for the purposes of Part II of the said Act of 1983"; and
        (c) in the definition of "the relevant person" for paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
        "(ii) as regards a reference under the said section 64 or the said section 27, means the person on whose application the reference was made;".'.— [Sir George Young.]

      Clause 47

        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Amendments made:
        No. 28, in page 42, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 20 and insert
        "sections 27(2), 40(2), 41(2), and 46(1)'.
        No. 29, in page 42, line 22, leave out 'repeals' and insert 'repeal'.
        No. 30, in page 42, line 23, at end insert '(2)'.—[Sir George Young.]

      Schedule 9
        REPEALS
        Amendment made: No. 40, in page 66, line 12, column 3, leave out from 'Act"' to end of line 15.—[Sir George Young.]
      Clause 28

        FINAL CERTIFICATES
        Mr. Graham: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 29, line 20, after 'certificate', insert
        '(which in the case of the local authority, shall include for record purposes plans containing such detail as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State'.
        The Under-Secretary of State has fairly demonstrated a method whereby the Government have been prepared not necessarily to change their mind after the Committee stage of the Bill but to reflect on a way in which the Bill can be refashioned in the light of what was discussed in Committee.
        On Report the Opposition are faced with two choices. They can either simply repeat the substance of an amendment that was sought in Committee or suggest

        967
        completely new amendments. I think that the Minister will agree that Labour Members have sought to concentrate on six main issues that had merit in Committee and which we still believe have some merit. That is why we have sought to introduce them today.
        The Minister is right to say that the Bill has two main parts. One relates to the right-to-buy provisions, particularly for tenants of charitable housing, and the other relates to the building control system. When we debated the issues arising out of changes in the building control system, Labour Members dealt with three or four main matters about which we had been advised by professionals and others and which they wanted to see improved if the Bill were to become an Act. They advised us that the Bill ought not to have a Second Reading or a Third Reading.
        One matter related to the raison d'etre of the Bill's reliance upon insurance principles. We shall have to go back to the professionals and say that we have failed in that respect. The second was the need to be clear that the Bill ensured that the independence of the approved inspector was beyond doubt. I shall have to go back to the professionals and say precisely the same. The third aspect on which we wanted amendment was the manner in which certain public bodies appeared to be specially favoured by the exceptions. We failed to move the Minister on that.
        Last, but not least, in the hierarchy of the matters that have caused great unease outside the Committee is the way in which Ministers have sought to rely on secondary legislation at every possible opportunity. The Minister may have good technical grounds for doing this, but the Government have deliberately sought secondary means of bringing forward the detail rather than simply putting a word or two on the face of the Bill as primary legislation. The latter would have caused satisfaction outside and left beyond dispute precisely what the Government have in mind.
        For example, on page 29 of the Bill, clause 28 says:
        "Where an approved inspector is satisfied that any work specified in an initial notice given by him has been completed, he shall give—

        (a) to the local authority by whom the initial notice was accepted, and

        (b) to the person by whom the work was carried out, such certificate with respect to the completion".

        All that we are seeking to do is to insert after "certificate" the words:
        "which in the case of the local authority, shall include for record purposes plans containing such detail as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
        I am certain that the Minister will assure us that our amendment is unnecessary because the Bill contains, by prescription and by words in other clauses, that which we are seeking to achieve. In other words, there will be the provision that the plans finally deposited will need to contain all the detail that is required. The Minister may tell us that very early on we discussed detailed plans—on what is now clause 24—and the word "detail". The Minister reassured the Committee then that it was his intention to ensure by secondary legislation that plans would need to be accompanied by such detail as he would prescribe as necessary. In other words, we are not very far apart, and both sides of the House and those outside the House are seeking to achieve the recognition that it is valuable if the plans that are to form such a crucial part in these matters are accompanied by some detail.
        968
        I sought advice from outside the Committee, from among professionals as to what they would consider necessary detail. I told them that it was no good asking me to press for detailed plans and they must tell me the details they wanted. Unfortunately, if one professional gave a set of details that he considered would be essential, it would be different in part from the proposals of some of the others, certainly on structure, drawings and materials. However, the argument is not about the precise nature of the detail. We want the Bill to say that the plans when finally presented will be accompanied by such detail as is laid down in the prescribed regulations.
        Hon. Members will know that the Minister and those in charge of the Bill are not backward in using prescribed forms. There are 56 occasions in the Bill when the world—which will have to make the Bill work—will have to wait until the Minister decides the precise detail and the manner in which he will use his powers. We are invited to await the detail of prescribed grounds, fees, form, details, time, notice, schemes, period, purpose, regulations and circumstances. The Opposition are worried that, when that body of prescribed details, forms and fees is presented, it is likely that we shall have to argue about them in great detail in a short time. We may have an hour and a half or three hours, but we shall have to go over all this again.
        The tragedy is that we have sat in Committee for more than 100 hours and the Bill has been before the House since November, yet the professionals and councillors who will have to carry the burden must wait three or four months more to grapple with all the details. That is not fair.
        If the Minister's advisers tell him that there is no need to accept this amendment, and he does not, he will be acting in the face of the wishes of many professionals. They see merit in the inclusion of these words. If the Minister accepts the amendment, they might look more kindly on the Bill's philosophy. Some people have persisted and will continue to persist in another place in the belief that the Minister may accept some of the amendments that he may not think are necessary because the professionals think they are.
        At the moment, local authorities are the only repositories of information about buildings erected in their district. It was suggested in Committee that more than 90 per cent. of buildings depart to some extent from the original plans. I hope that the Minister will say that he understands our anxiety in this respect. Local building control offices are used as repositories of knowledge, not simply for the benefit of building inspectors but for developers, builders, architects, surveyors, planners and members of the public. The latter may go there saying that they have a little worry because their house seems to be in a special area. The building control officers can say, "Yes, we have dealt with a similar problem before. These are the plans that we used when we dealt with that problem in another place. This is how the builder got round the problem." The officer can go to drawers, boxes, or files—perhaps even microfilm these days—and find the necessary information. The local building control office is a place where men and women like to go because there they have free access to the experience and guidance that may have been accumulated over a century.
        There are problems with the strata of the land in many parts of the country. In Committee, I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) said about

        969
        some of the problems that local building control offices have when there is mining subsidence. Such information gathering should continue.
        The Opposition are least important in these matters—it is the fears of people outside that really matter. They feel that, with the Bill in its present form, there is a real possibility that the present high standing of the plans that finally make their way to local building control offices will be diminished. The Minister is well aware that the Bill does not require approved inspectors to retain plans except for their own files. I hope that the Minister can assure hon. Members and those outside the House that the present well-liked system will continue. We all know about the problems of asbestos and cement, and we wish to ensure that wherever information has been deposited—we can think of no better place than a council office—it is always available to the public.
        10.30 pm
        At present, about 400 local authorities are in a network of regional and national associations and can exchange their views. In future, the building regulation certifier may not be one local authority but 50, 60 or 100 professionals. In that case, experience may be disparate and it may be difficult for the public to draw upon it.
        I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because it seeks to reassure the public that building plans, when finally deposited, are accompanied by such detail as may be prescribed. It is a small request, and I hope that the Minister can respond to it.
        Mr. Litherland: This amendment seeks to ensure that plans will be submitted to a local authority when final certification is given, not just when the work reverts to the local authority. The Minister's argument that there is excessive bureaucracy is false, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) said, at present the local authority acts as a depository for information about buildings within its boundaries.
        My hon. Friend mentioned asbestos. In the large development of deck access flats in Manchester, large quantities of asbestos were used. Without the plans, we could never have found out in which flats asbestos was present. It is of great benefit to the health of our citizens that we can obtain the necessary details at a central point. It is estimated that more than 90 per cent. of buildings differ from the original plans deposited. Planning is not static, but ever-changing, so it is essential that the information is collated and available when requested. Professionals and members of the public can use this facility, which is a mine of information. The information is all collated at one source. I understand that several thousand inquiries per week are received, and to fragment this information will lead eventually to utter confusion.
        When someone is purchasing a house it is simple for the solicitor or whoever is acting for him to go to the local authority planning department to find out whether planning permission has been given. That applies not just to housing but to any building. We believe that all the information should be kept in one place so that everyone can gain access to it. Local authorities have gained expertise in these matters over many years. The facility to issue details and give expert help to all the people who go to the town hall would be lost. Plans have to be amended and kept up to date. In a document, NALGO makes the point that
        970
        "With the introduction of the approved inspector, there will be no requirement to provide plans to the local authority, as a result there will be a serious diminution in the information available to the public and professions, especially when wishing to make alterations to buildings in the future. The Bill, as currently drafted also does not oblige the approved inspector to retain the plans once a final certificate has been issued except"— as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton has said—
        "for his own personal records. The amendment as now drafted will ensure that in future approved inspectors will have to provide plans to local authorities as prescribed by the Secretary of State. The amount of information contained in these plans will be set out in regulations and need only be sufficient to ensure that the local authority continues to be a repository of information for the future."
        I cannot see any reason why the public cannot have this facility for their information and protection. We dealt with this subject in detail in Committee and, as has been said, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) gave a number of examples where it would be essential to have the plans in case of a disaster.
        I can give an example of an area in my constituency where it is essential to have the plans to see what went wrong with an estate that is now being demolished. We are seeking legal advice as to who is responsible for the faults. The original plans of the development will have to be studied. If private individuals can retain the plans, and they are then scattered around, the system that was built up for the public's information and safety will be thrown into confusion. I support the amendment.
        Sir Albert Costain: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist the amendment. In theory, it is extraordinarily good, but in practice it is unbelievably unrealistic. Is the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) suggesting that for every house built on an estate of 1,000 houses there should be 1,000 plans deposited with the local authority?
        The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to know what is in a building. He spoke about plans, but most of his speech should have been about specifications. For example, he referred to asbestos. It is unlikely that the type of asbestos used will be shown on the plan. It will probably just say that it is asbestos sheet. However, the specifications would give details. The specifications are also easier to store. The amendment does not specify how long the plans should be kept. Is it 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years? Where will they be stored? Who is to have access to them?
        Advice should be given to every architect who designs a building to keep sufficient plans that could be consulted should anything go wrong with the building. I think that architects do that automatically, anyway. If they do not keep the plans, they have to resurvey the property and redraw them. There is no point in imposing a legal obligation on them.
        The amendment has good intentions, but it is not worth the additional expense that would be entailed.
        Mr. Welsh: I must tell the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) that plans are already deposited with local authorities. There are thousands of inquiries each week about those plans. I would be the last to say that those inquiries were necessarily justified—they may have been made in fun. But business men who make such inquiries, and spend money on sending architects to study the plans, do so to gain knowledge of an area. It could be a mining area, a swamp area or a clay area. Surely it is better for the contractor or anyone else—
        Sir A. Costain: Has the hon. Gentleman ever seen a plan that shows a clay area? Has he ever seen a plan deposited with a local authority that gives such information?
        Mr. Welsh: I have seen plans for mining areas that give a tremendous amount of information about the workings below ground. I was chairman of the architect's department in the Doncaster metropolitan borough, which has the largest acreage in the country, and chairman of the planning department and also involved in the technical services and engineering branch. I have a little knowledge—but not a lot—of the matter. In Doncaster there was a sub-committee to examine special buildings. I was not the chairman but left the operation to three people, together with my architect and planner, to consider the details and report back to me. Because of that operation we made few mistakes. In fact, private enterprise took advantage of advice from my planners and architects. Even the National Coal Board took advantage of that advice, which was based on plans deposited with the local authority. Amendment No. 63 merely seeks to ensure a similar system.
        10.45 pm
        I should have thought that the Minister would be grateful to have this knowledge. Building control and planning does not include all the information, but there have been times when we have failed by not having enough information. One recalls Higher Lune, which cost us a new swimming bath at the beautiful colliery village of Askern. Thank God we knew the strata and what was involved so that it cost only £125,000 to put right. We knew that because there was sufficient detail in the plans. That is just one example of how beneficial this is for local authorities. If plans and information as to materials and so on were available for private enterprise, we could protect that sector as well.
        Sir Albert Costain: The hon. Gentleman makes my case with more clarity than I did. He admits that the plans were available. I could not agree more that one needs geological plans for the substrata, but I do not believe that every house plan in his constituency should include all that information—and if all that information is not included the plans are of little value for his purpose.
        Mr. Welsh: It would be wrong to enter into a dialogue with the hon. Gentleman about this, but it is surely correct to make certain that we have the material. What is wrong with ensuring that people and buildings are protected? I see nothing wrong with that, but I see something wrong with not protecting them. If some kiddie lost his life because this was not done, I should be very hurt. The cost of administration is well worth it if it saves one kiddie's life.
        We are simply trying to ensure that protection. In a free society we are entitled to do that. That may not be so in totalitarian states, but that is a different kettle of fish. This is a free society. We pass laws of the land and the most important aspect of the law is to see that no one is hurt. That is final and important. We seek to ensure that no one is hurt by the legislation. It may not come in for years. On the other hand, it just may come in and that protection is worth all the money in the world. It is vital.
        If the approved officer is the only person in possession of the documents and can throw them away—it is entirely
        972
        up to him whether he keeps them—we may find ourselves in a very embarrassing situation. We simply seek assurance. We won a couple of points in Committee, and, as I have said to the Minister before, it is a wise man who can change his mind and only a fool who cannot. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree to this small amendment to guarantee some protection for people by ensuring that the plans are with the local authority. In any area, most people rightly hold the local authority in high esteem in matters of public safety, just as the national Government are held in high esteem in these matters.
        I hope that on this rare occasion the Minister will accept the amendment.
        Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) rightly said that the Opposition took exception to various aspects of the Bill, but I am surprised that he has alighted on this matter, which seems to raise no major issue of principle. The matter was dealt with adequately in Committee, and the Opposition did not press it to a Division on that occasion. I am also rather surprised that, having criticised us for providing in the Bill that
        "The Secretary of State may by regulations"
        prescribe, the hon. Gentleman then tables an amendment which says, in effect, exactly that.
        Amendment No. 63 would require an approved inspector, when he gives a final certificate in respect of work, to provide the local authority with plans of the work for record purposes. The Secretary of State would be able to prescribe the details contained in such plans and so, in effect, the plans would be "as built" plans. We see no need for a local authority to receive plans for record purposes. The amendment would impose not only an onerous and, possibly, expensive obligation on building owners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) rightly pointed out, but would provide a wholly new function for local authorities.
        As I explained in Committee, local authorities do not receive such plans for record purposes under the existing system and we see no reason why they should do so under certification. It was suggested on two occasions that this might help people to identify some suspect materials, but building plans would not show the composition of materials that had been used in a particular building, so it would not enable people to tackle that problem.
        At the moment, local authorities receive full plans, but before the work is started. A building does not have to be built in accordance with the plans; it has to be built in accordance with the building regulations. As the hon. Member for Edmonton conceded, the vast majority of buildings depart in varying degrees from the plans deposited. In other words, the plans kept by the local authority at the time are not necessarily accurate plans of the building that has been erected, so the amendment would not parallel any provision that currently exists. It is not clear why the local authority would want the plans. If people want the plans of a building, the owner would have them, the certifier would have kept them, and I expect that various other professionals who had been associated with it would also have kept them. So the records are available if they are needed for any purpose.
        I am sorry to end the final debate on Report in this tone, but we cannot accept the amendment. It would be a bureaucratic initiative for very little public gain. It would not perform the function that has been outlined by Members who have spoken in favour of it. The

        973
        information, if it is needed, is available elsewhere. For those reasons, I must ask the House to reject the amendment.
        Mr. Graham: I am sorry that the Minister has used the argument that what we are asking for is not at present the vogue. Under the present system, local authorities are not obliged to receive and build up a library of plans of work as built. In the next few months we are contemplating a radical change in the present system and in all sorts of relationships. The Minister may believe that the present efficiency and service to the community of local authority building control departments will continue without change. Surely the whole raison d'être of this part of the Bill, if there is anything to it, is that there will be a new set-up. If the Minister is saying, as he and his colleagues have said more than once, that it is a matter of choice and that the individual developer can choose either the old route or the new route and that there is no question of force, it is obvious that the Government hope, by one means or another, to encourage people to use the new route.
        We shall oppose the new route, but if the new route is established we shall examine what that means in practice. The Minister said that there is no need for the council to be obliged to be the repository of plans. The Minister said that owners, certifiers and professionals will have their own plans which will be available. Who says that they will be available? Who says that the owner will keep his plans and will not destroy them? Who says that the professional, who has a library of plans, will keep them and will not sell them, throw them away or forget all about them? One relies on the possibility that some individuals, out of the goodness of their hearts, keep detailed plans of the work that has been done and are willing to make them available to the public. If that is how we are to go on, I fear for the safety of a great many people.
        This is perhaps the last opportunity to discuss this important change. The Minister should know that those currently involved in local government building control arrangements are more than a little fearful about the number of times that they will be left to carry the can when, under the new arrangements, approved inspectors, for one reason or another, not necessarily through dereliction, have departed the scene.
        In Committee, as shown in column 1904 of the Official Report, the Minister set out the three ways in which a final certificate should be given. One of them was in the event of the local authority having to take over the approved inspector's responsibilities. The manner in which it takes over the work is set out in other clauses. The Minister for Housing and Construction said in Committee that the Government could envisage few occasions when the authority would have to take over. Those closest to him must have said that in their opinion the approved inspector, whether an architect, an engineer or any other professional, was unlikely to cause the authority to take over.
        The building control officers, the Society of Chief Building Control Officers and, more importantly, NALGO have provided us with a great deal of briefing. Their knowledge of those who are likely to become approved inspectors causes them to make the assessment that the authority will have to pick up the tab on more occasions than the Minister foresees.
        974
        We are asking only for that which the Minister has already promised. On an earlier occasion the Minister said that it would be his intention to prescribe the detail that would need to accompany the initial plans. We are asking only that the final certificate shall be accompanied by the detail that is prescribed. We are asking for the same range of detail that the Minister has told us will accompany the initial notice.
        We are disappointed that the Minister, who has always been courteous and fair, has failed to understand the anxiety of those upon whom we all rely, the public servants and private professionals, who feel that the amendment would be helpful. We accept that it may be costly, but if there is another Summerland disaster, with grave derelictions of duty and waivers of building byelaws, it may well be said "It is a pity that the depositing of plans and details to the local authority was not insisted upon." It would then be far too late to say that at 11 o'clock on 23 March the House had the opportunity to do something about it. We are satisfied that this is a proper amendment and we shall press it to a Division.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 262.

        Division No. 101]

        1:10.58 pm

        AYES

        Abse, Leo

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

        Allaun, Frank

        English, Michael

        Alton, David

        Ennals, Rt Hon David

        Anderson, Donald

        Evans, loan (Aberdare)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Ewing, Harry

        Ashton, Joe

        Faulds, Andrew

        Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

        Flannery, Martin

        Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

        Ford, Ben

        Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

        Foulkes, George

        Beith, A. J.

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

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

        Freud, Clement

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Garrett, John (Norwich S)

        Booth, Rt Hon Albert

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Golding, John

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Graham, Ted

        Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

        Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

        Haynes, Frank

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

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

        Buchan, Norman

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

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Home Robertson, John

        Canavan, Dennis

        Hooley, Frank

        Cant, R. B.

        Howell, Rt Hon D.

        Carmichael, Neil

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Cartwright, John

        Huckfield, Les

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Cohen, Stanley

        Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

        Coleman, Donald

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

        Crowther, Stan

        John, Brynmor

        Cryer, Bob

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Kerr, Russell

        Dalyell, Tam

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Davidson, Arthur

        Lambie, David

        Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

        Lamond, James

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

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Deakins, Eric

        Leighton, Ronald

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

        Dixon, Donald

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Dobson, Frank

        Litherland, Robert

        Dormand, Jack

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Douglas, Dick

        McElhone, Mrs Helen

        Dubs, Alfred

        McKelvey, William

        Dunnett, Jack

        McTaggart, Robert

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

        Eadie, Alex

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        975

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

        Mikardo, Ian

        Silverman, Julius

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Skinner, Dennis

        Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

        Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

        Soley, Clive

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

        Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

        Newens, Stanley

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Stallard, A. W.

        Ogden, Eric

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        O'Halloran, Michael

        Stoddart, David

        O'Neill, Martin

        Strang, Gavin

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Straw, Jack

        Park, George

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        Parker, John

        Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

        Parry, Robert

        Tilley, John

        Penhaligon, David

        Torney, Tom

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

        Price, C. (Lewisham W)

        Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

        Race, Reg

        Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

        Richardson, Jo

        Wardell, Gareth

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Welsh, Michael

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        White, Frank R.

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

        White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

        Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

        Whitlock, William

        Robertson, George

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

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

        Roper, John

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

        Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

        Wilson, William (C'try SE)

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Winnick, David

        Rowlands, Ted

        Woodall, Alec

        Ryman, John

        Wright, Sheila

        Sever, John

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Dr. Edmund Marshall and

        Short, Mrs Renée

        Mr. George Morton.

        Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

        Alexander, Richard

        Chapman, Sydney

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Churchill, W. S.

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

        Ancram, Michael

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Arnold, Tom

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Clegg, Sir Walter

        Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

        Cockeram, Eric

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Colvin, Michael

        Banks, Robert

        Corrie, John

        Bendall, Vivian

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

        Critchley, Julian

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Crouch, David

        Best, Keith

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        Blackburn, John

        Durant, Tony

        Body, Richard

        Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

        Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

        Eggar, Tim

        Bowden, Andrew

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Eyre, Reginald

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Bright, Graham

        Faith, Mrs Sheila

        Brinton, Tim

        Farr, John

        Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

        Finsberg, Geoffrey

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

        Brotherton, Michael

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

        Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

        Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Forman, Nigel

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Buck, Antony

        Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

        Budgen, Nick

        Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

        Burden, Sir Frederick

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Butcher, John

        Gardner, Sir Edward

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        976

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Gow, Ian

        Moore, John

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Morgan, Geraint

        Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

        Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

        Greenway, Harry

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

        Grist, Ian

        Mudd, David

        Grylls, Michael

        Murphy, Christopher

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Myles, David

        Hamilton, Hon A.

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Needham, Richard

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hannam, John

        Neubert, Michael

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Newton, Tony

        Hastings, Stephen

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Osborn, John

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Heddle, John

        Parris, Matthew

        Henderson, Barry

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        Hicks, Robert

        Patten, John (Oxford)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Pawsey, James

        Holland, Philip (Carlton)

        Percival, Sir Ian

        Hooson, Tom

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Hordern, Peter

        Pollock, Alexander

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

        Porter, Barry

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Prior, Rt Hon James

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

        Rathbone, Tim

        Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

        Rees-Davies, W. R.

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Renton, Tim

        Kaberry, Sir Donald

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Ridley, Hon Nicholas

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Rossi, Hugh

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Rost, Peter

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Royle, Sir Anthony

        Knox, David

        Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

        Lang, Ian

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Langford-Holt, Sir John

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Latham, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lee, John

        Shepherd, Richard

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Silvester, Fred

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Sims, Roger

        Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Loveridge, John

        Speed, Keith

        Luce, Richard

        Speller, Tony

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Spence, John

        McCrindle, Robert

        Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Sproat, Iain

        MacGregor, John

        Squire, Robin

        Mac Kay, John (Argyll)

        Stainton, Keith

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

        Stanley, John

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

        Steen, Anthony

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Stevens, Martin

        Major, John

        Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

        Marland, Paul

        Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Stokes, John

        Mates, Michael

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Mather, Carol

        Tapsell, Peter

        Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Mawby, Ray

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Mayhew, Patrick

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

        Mellor, David

        Thompson, Donald

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

        Miscampbell, Norman

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Moate, Roger

        Viggers, Peter

        977

        Waddington, David

        Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

        Wakeham, John

        Whitney, Raymond

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Wickenden, Keith

        Walker, B. (Perth)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

        Williams, D.(Montgomery)

        Wall, Sir Patrick

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Waller, Gary

        Wolfson, Mark

        Walters, Dennis

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Ward, John

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Warren, Kenneth

        Watson, John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wells, Bowen

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Wheeler, John

        Mr. John Cope.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the proceedings on Consideration to a conclusion.

      Clause 31

        GIVING, ACCEPTANCE AND EFFECT OF PUBLIC BODY'S NOTICE
        Amendments made: No. 64, in page 32, line 15, leave out 'is, or which' and insert
        'acts under any enactment for public purposes and not for its own profit and is, or'.
        No. 65, in page 32, line 19, after 'out', insert
        'in relation to a building belonging to it'.
        No. 43, in page 32, line 38, leave out
        'provision of Part II of the 1936 Act' and insert 'enactment'. — [Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 35

        INTERPRETATION OF PART II
        Amendment made: No. 44, in page 34, line 43, at end insert
        "'enactment" includes any enactment contained in a local Act'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 36

        EXEMPTION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC. FROM PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF BUILDING REGULATIONS
        Amendments made: No. 66, in page 35, line 35, after 'body', insert
        'which acts under any enactment for public purposes and not for its own profit and is'.
        No. 56, in page 36, leave out lines 15 to 17.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 39

        COMPLIANCE OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED DOCUMENTS
        Amendments made: No. 57, in page 38, line 20, at beginning insert
        'A failure on the part of any person to comply with an approved document shall not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but'.
        No. 58, in page 38, line 21, leave out 'failed to comply with' and insert 'contravened'.
        No. 59, in page 38, line 22, leave out 'proof of compliance' and insert '(a) a failure to comply'.
        No. 60, in page 38, leave out lines 25 to 32 and insert
        'establish liability; and
        978
        (b) proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 40

        CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING REGULATIONS
        Amendments made: No. 25, in page 39, line 17, leave out from 'not' to end of line 18 and insert
        'except in prescribed circumstances reject the plans on the ground that they are defective with respect to any provisions of the regulations which are so specified or that they show that the proposed work could contravene any of those provisions'.
        No. 26, in page 41, leave out lines 1 to 4.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 44

        INTERPRETATION OF PART III
        Amendment made: No. 61, in page 41, line 39, at end insert—
        '"contravention", in relation to any provision of building regulations, includes a failure to comply with that provision;'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 46

        REPEALS
        Amendment made: No. 27, in page 42, line 13, at beginning insert—
        '(1) Section 69(3) of the 1974 Act (appeals against certain decisions of the Secretary of State) shall be amended as follows—
        (a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
        "(b) on a reference under section 64 of the 1936 Act or section 27 of the Housing and Building Control Act 1983;";
        (b) after the words "local authority", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the person approved for the purposes of Part II of the said Act of 1983"; and
        (c) in the definition of "the relevant person" for paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
        "(ii) as regards a reference under the said section 64 or the said section 27, means the person on whose application the reference was made;".'.— [Mr. Stanley.]

      Clause 47

        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Amendments made: No. 28, in page 42, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 20 and insert
        'sections 27(2), 40(2), 41(2), and 46(1)'.
        No. 29, in page 42, line 22, leave out 'repeals' and insert 'repeal'.
        No. 30, in page 42, line 23, at end insert `(2)'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Schedule 1

        EXTENSION OF RIGHT TO BUY TO CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD
        Amendments made:
        No. 31, in page 43, line 6, at beginning insert—

        '1. In section 6(4)(a) of the 1980 Act (assumptions on the grant of a lease) for the words from "for 125 years" onwards there

        979
        shall be substituted the words "with vacant possession for the appropriate term defined in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to this Act (but subject to sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph)".

        2. In section 14 of the 1980 Act (change of landlord after notice claiming right to buy or right to a mortgage) for the words "the freehold of there shall be substituted the words "the interest of the landlord in".

        3. In section 16(1) of the 1980 Act (completion) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

        "(a) if the dwelling-house is a house and the landlord owns the freehold, a grant of the dwelling-house for an estate in fee simple absolute; and

        (b) if the landlord does not own the freehold or (whether or not the landlord owns it) the dwelling-house is a flat, a grant of a lease of the dwelling-house for the appropriate term defined in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to this Act (but subject to sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph);".

        4. At the end of section 17 of the 1980 Act (conveyance of freehold and grant of lease) there shall be inserted the words "and other matters".

        5. Section 18 of the 1980 Act (right to a mortgage—terms of mortgage deed) shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section, in that provision as so renumbered the words from "but the Secretary of State" onwards shall be omitted and after that provision as so renumbered there shall be inserted the following subsections—

        "(2) Where the mortgagor's interest in the dwelling-house is leasehold and the term of the lease is less than 25 years, subsection (1)(b) above shall have effect as if the reference to 25 years were a reference to the term of the lease.

        (3) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe additional terms to be contained in any deed by which a mortgage is effected in pursuance of this Chapter or vary the provisions of subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (2) above, but only in relation to deeds executed after the order comes into force."

        6. In subsection (3) of section 20 of the 1980 Act (registration of title) for the words "subsection (2)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1)(b)" and for subsections (1) and (2) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—

        "(1) Where the landlord's title to the dwelling-house is not registered—

        (a) section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (compulsory registration of title) shall apply in relation to the conveyance of the freehold or the grant of a lease in pursuance of this Chapter whether or not the dwelling-house is in an area in which an Order in Council under section 120 of that Act is for the time being in force and, in the case of a lease, whether or not the lease is granted for a term of not less than 40 years;

        (b) the landlord shall give the tenant a certificate stating that the landlord is entitled to convey the freehold or make the grant subject only to such incumbrances, rights and interests as are stated in the conveyance or grant or summarised in the certificate; and

        (c) section 8 of that Act (application for registration of leasehold land) shall apply in relation to a lease granted in pursuance of this Chapter notwithstanding that it is a lease for a term of which not more than 21 years are unexpired.

        (2) Where the landlord's title to the dwelling-house is registered, section 22 of the said Act of 1925 (registration of dispositions of leaseholds) shall apply in relation to a lease granted in pursuance of this Chapter notwithstanding that it is granted for a term not exceeding 21 years."

        7. In section 24 of the 1980 Act (vesting orders)—

        (a) in subsection (3) after the word "If' there shall be inserted the words "the landlord's title to" and the word "land" shall be omitted;

        (b) in subsection (4) after the words "an absolute title" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may require, a good leasehold title"; and

        980

        (c) in subsection (5) after the word "Where" there shall be inserted the words "the landlord's title to" and the word "land" shall be omitted.',

        No. 32, in page 44, line 13 at end insert—
        '(1A) In paragraph 12 (common use of premises and facilities) after the word "Where" there shall be inserted the words 'the dwelling-house is a flat and".'.
        No. 33, in page 44, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 26 and insert
        'For the heading of Part IV of Schedule 2 to the 1980 Act (charges on freehold) there shall be substituted the heading "CHARGES AND OTHER MATTERS".
        (1A) In paragraph 18 of that Schedule'.
        No. 34, in page 44, leave out lines 42 to 46 and insert—
        '4. In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3 to the 1980 Act (tenancies which are not secure tenancies) after the words "long tenancy" there shall be inserted the words "or a tenancy granted in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of this Act"'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Schedule 5

        TERMS OF A SHARED OWNERSHIP LEASE
        Amendments made: No. 37, in page 54, line 22 after 'a', insert 'written'.
        No. 38, in page 54, line 38, after 'a', insert 'written'.
        No. 39, in page 58, line 15, after 'a', insert 'written'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Schedule 9

        REPEALS
        Amendments made: No. 40, in page 66, line 12, column 3, leave out from 'Act"' to end of line 15.
        No. 41, in page 66, line 28, column 3, at end insert—
        'In section 8(8) the words from the beginning to "and".'.—[Mr. Stanley.]
        Order for Third reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales' Consent signified.]
        11.11 pm
        Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment.
        Mr. Stanley: This Bill embodies two quite different but equally radical and, in our view, beneficial reforming measures: the reform of building control and the further extension of the right to buy and also of the tenant's charter. The first will, I am in no doubt, prove to be of long-term benefit to the construction industry and the second will enable more tenants to take advantage of the unique opportunity of home ownership that this Government have made available to them.
        The efficiency and speed of the building control system bear directly on the efficiency and speed of the entire construction process and, equally, the form of the building regulations themselves—their intelligibility, their flexibility, their ability to reflect higher building standards and advances in building materials—is crucial to the success and competitiveness of our construction industry.
        Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with the section of the Bill dealing with building regulations and that many hon. Members have had large amounts of correspondence on this from

        981
        professional organisations and NALGO, which argue that the Bill will weaken the whole system of building control? What are the Minister's comments on that?
        Mr. Stanley: We have debated this at great length, over many months. Broadly, our comments are that as far as the form of the building regulations is concerned, there is a remarkable degree of unanimity that the particular changes we propose to make are highly desirable. The change of the option of private sector certification is more contentious, but it is our view that nothing has occurred since Second Reading to suggest that it is not perfectly feasible and reasonable to offer the option of private certification. Therefore, we are inviting the House to give the Bill a Third Reading on the basis, essentially, on which it was introduced in that respect.
        Building control is certainly complicated. It is technically and legally difficult. I acknowledge, too, that electorally the reform of building control has no great appeal. It is indicative of the way in which the present Government are concentrating, even in the last full session of this Parliament, on matters of strategic and long-term importance to key sections of the economy, of which the construction industry is one, that we have given time to the building control proposals.
        The Opposition have found something to complain of in the building control proposals. Their complaints seem to stem from the deep prejudices that we know they have against the private sector, and they have sought to prophesy that every imaginable apocalypse would result from the enactment of these proposals. The Opposition argued in Committee that there would be be danger to public safety, that buildings would collapse. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said that an orgy of corruption would sweep through the ranks of the architects, surveyors and structural engineers and that the greatest den of iniquity of all would the one body that can do private certification more or less immediately—the National House Building Council.
        Listening to the Opposition's observations on the building control proposals, I was reminded of the debates that took place about 150 years ago, when leading landowning peers in another place sought to resist the early Bills to build railway lines. They argued with total conviction that the predictable and certain effect of building railways across the fields of rural England was that the cows would cease to calve for evermore. Just as that argument was shown to have no basis in reality, equally the Opposition's dire prophesies about the building control provisions in this Bill will not be borne out in practice.
        I am certain that the building control proposals, the new building regulations, in the form of functional requirements and approved documents, will prove a significant advance on the existing regulations. I acknowledge that both the functional requirements and the approved documents are extremely important. We are anxious to make certain that we get the detail correct, and we shall continue, as we have done for more than two years, to consult closely about the detailed form of the functional requirements and the approved documents. Equally, I am sure that the private certification option will prove practicable—earlier in some areas, such as low-rise housing, than in others—and that it will be a useful and beneficial extension of choice for builders.
        982
        There is no compelling or necessary reason why building control should remain a public sector monopoly. The skills and expertise required are as available in the private sector as they are in the public sector. There are no grounds for claiming that private sector architects, surveyors and structural engineers have less skill or less professional integrity than their counterparts in the public sector. I believe that after a few years' operation of the system of private certification, the question asked will be not why we did it but why we did not do it very much sooner. The new building regulations and the introduction of private certification are sensible and worthwhile strategic and industrial reforms to be added to the many others that the Government have introduced in industry.
        Equally worthwhile and sensible are the new rights for secure tenants of local authorities, new towns and housing associations in the Bill. I am not simply referring to the right to buy. One of this Government's most important housing achievements has been the transformation that we have secured in the legal status and legal rights of the 6 million families who rent in the public sector through the tenants' charter—the tenants' charter that was voted down by the Labour Government in 1977, and which was reintroduced only as an empty political gesture in March 1979, when it had no chance of reaching the statute book.
        The Bill will extend the tenants' charter in two important respects. It will extend the right to improve that we introduced in the 1980 Act by giving a right to repair as well, but this time with the tenant being able to claim reimbursement from the local authority. The local authority will be able to save money, because the amount of the reimbursement can never be more than what it would cost the local authority to do the repairs itself, and it can be less. The tenant also gains by being able to get his repairs done more quickly. Councils such as the London borough of Havering have shown that a right to repair is administratively practical and financially cost-effective. Getting repairs done is perhaps now the biggest single problem for tenants generally in the public sector. I am glad that we can give some useful help here through the right-to-repair scheme.
        The other extension of the tenants' charter is the amendment that I moved earlier to give greater statutory protection to those hundreds of thousands of tenants on district and communal heating systems. Many of those tenants face high heating charges with no right to information as to how they are calculated and no right to challenge those charges in court if the basis on which they are assessed is not in the tenant's view reasonable. The Bill will provide such rights and is a further useful extension of the tenants' charter.
        The Bill will also help those tenants who want to buy their homes. In the light of the experience of the right to buy that we have gained over the past two and a half years, we have taken this opportunity to remove points of obstruction and difficulty placed in the way of tenants exercising their legal rights by certain Labour councils. For instance, the Bill will restore the right to buy to those Norwich tenants who were pressurised into surrendering it by that council when it made the agreement to an exchange conditional on the tenant forfeiting his right to buy.
        The Bill will give greater powers to the Secretary of State to protect tenants when their councils try to impose unreasonable and onerous covenants on them. That has been another major source of complaint and difficulty. It

        983
        will give tenants the ability to seek financial assistance from the Secretary of State to initiate legal proceedings against a council which fails to carry out its legal obligation towards a tenant who is seeking to exercise his right to buy. In other words, the Bill will make it easier for tenants to obtain their right to buy in accordance with the provisions that Parliament has enacted.
        The Bill will also benefit several new groups of tenants who have been unable to exercise their right to buy until now. The 50,000 or so whose homes are on leasehold land will get the right to buy. So will the 80,000 or so tenants of charitable housing associations in houses that have been publicly funded in the same way as those belonging to non-charitable housing associations where the right to buy already exists. Those tenants who want to buy but who cannot afford to buy outright will now get the right to buy on a shared ownership basis, which will effectively bring the opportunity of home ownership within the reach of virtually every public tenant who can command a mortgage.
        The right to shared ownership is one of the most important and, indeed, revolutionary advances brought about by the Government. The right to buy is undoubtedly one of the most significant and beneficial social revolutions of this century, resisted once again tonight by the Labour, Liberal and Social Democratic parties. No other legislation has given access to capital to more people more quickly. No other legislation has given the opportunity of asset ownership to those who have little or no assets. Half a million tenants have benefited from the right to buy already. Many more would like to follow in their footsteps. The Bill will enable them to do so and I commend it to the House.
        11.22 pm
        Mrs. Ann Taylor: This is the only so-called major housing legislation from the Government during this session. What is the sum total of the Government's proposals? Will the legislation ease our major housing problems or not? Will it result in the building of more council houses? Will it result in the building of more private houses? Will it mean the employment of more building workers, reduce the ever-increasing number of homeless people or do anything to help those families in desperate need on housing waiting lists?
        The Bill will do nothing for any of those problems. It will not help build one new house. It will not rehouse one family on any waiting list. It will not employ one more building worker. The Bill is irrelevant to the main housing problems that Britain is facing, and the Government have deliberately chosen to ignore those.
        The Minister said that the first part of the Bill was an extension of the compulsory sales policy that the Government have followed, and it is. The Government are now changing their mind and those categories that were excluded in the Housing Act 1980 for very good reasons are now being brought into the new legislation. Compulsory sales will be extended to leasehold properties and will create more problems for local authorities to administer. They will be extended, most important and most dangerous of all, to charitable housing associations and housing charities, which were excluded in 1980. I am confident that sense will prevail in the other place and that
        984
        clause 2 will end up where it should be—on the scrapheap, thrown out by people who have more sense and more knowledge of real housing problems than the Government.
        If, by any chance, the other place retains clause 2 in the Bill, the Bill will have serious consequences for charity law. In a retrospective way, it will undermine the good work done by many housing charities over many years, and may even wipe out some charities. It will reduce the stock of reasonable, rented accommodation for families and people in need. It will create more inequalities between different tenants of charitable housing associations and prevent housing associations from building replacement homes, so that they will not be able to carry out the work for which they were established. It will discourage voluntary effort altogether because the voluntary effort that has gone into the charitable housing movement in the past is now being turned into private gain by the Government.
        Then there are the clauses on shared ownership. The Government are so keen to sell council houses that they have a new scheme for those who cannot afford to buy their council house. Instead of buying all one's council house, one can buy half or 62·5 per cent., regardless of the consequences. The Government have not explained to the tenant who becomes a part owner the consequences that he will face. He will have to pay rent and will have repair obligations. The Minister and his Department are not keen to point out the problems that will arise. They will do anything to push council house sales.
        As the Minister has said, an important part of the Bill deals with housing control. It is the privatisation—another obsession of the Minister—of building control. We do not dispute what the Minister said about the need for rationalisation of building regulations, but the legislation is not about that. It is about the privatisation of building control. The Minister has consulted widely. He talked to the Institute of Building Control Officers, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Institute of Municipal Building Management, the Consumers Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Institution of Structural Engineers, and he has ignored all the advice of all the professional bodies in this business. No one, among all of those working in this business, believes that the Government's proposals are workable. Only those who do not know what is involved confidently claim that they can take on this privatisation.
        This evening, even the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who is one of the few Conservative Members with any experience in this business, acknowledged, when he withdrew his new clause on liability, that the Government's ideas would be unworkable until the problems of liability and insurance were worked out. There is no sign of that as yet.
        The Bill is about giving more power to the Secretary of State—power to interfere more with local authorities and to change charity law and even legal aid provisions by introducing help for tenants who wish to take on a local authority. We do not know where the Secretary of State intends to stop his bid for more and more power. He seems to be as power-mad as his predecessor, and that is dangerous.
        The Opposition wish that the Secretary of State and his Ministers would spend a small proportion of their time on real housing problems rather than Bills such as this. When the Minister comes to the House with plans to build more houses, to reduce rents from their present record level, to

        985
        get building workers back into jobs and to tackle the real housing problems, he may deserve some support. This Bill does nothing to solve those housing problems and, if it becomes law, we shall repeal it as soon as possible.
        11.29 pm
        Mr. Neil Thorne: I do not wish to detain the House but I should like to make two points.
        First, I am disappointed that clauses 38 and 39 were not discussed, either in Committee or on Second Reading. I hope that the issues in them will be discussed carefully in another place. They are important and need detailed examination.
        Secondly, I am deeply sorry that my hon. Friend the Minster was not able to be more helpful about my amendment No. 62, which would have extended the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations who live in properties that were acquired mainly with public funds either before or after 1974.
        I therefore wonder whether my hon. Friend can help in another way. He has already made generous provision for time served as a tenant with another association or local authority to be allowed to count towards the statutory deductions that are allowed. After what he told us about the enormous number of properties that are still being acquired by housing associations, may I ask him to consider inviting the Housing Corporation to give special assistance to tenants who are caught in the trap of being a tenant of a charitable housing association in a property that was purchased before 1974 so that they can obtain suitable alternative accommodation for purchase nearby, even if a loss is sustained as a result?
        11.31 pm
        Mr. Cartwright: On Second Reading I made it clear that our support for the Bill was heavily qualified because we regard it as a mixture of the good, the bad and the irrelevant. There is some sensible tidying up of anomalies in the right-to-buy legislation, especially in relation to leasehold property.
        I welcome the strengthening of the position of tenants who exercise the right to buy and find that they are obstructed by powerful local authorities. I also welcome the steps that are being taken to strengthen the rights of tenants who face service charges and restrictive covenants imposed by local authorities that do not want the right to buy to be meaningful.
        Unlike the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), I welcome what is being done about shared ownership. It is a step in the right direction. I am glad that the Minister singled out the provisions that relate to the greater rights of tenants on a district heating system because, as he knows, the groundwork for that part of the Bill was done by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
        With regard to the optional privatisation of building control, I find little evidence to suggest that builders and developers will leave the tried system of local authority building control for the much newer concept of the approved private inspector. I do not share the Minister's optimism that that will somehow yield a tremendous growth in the construction industry.
        Clause 2 is crucial to us. It concerns the extension of the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations. We tabled an instruction to delete that clause
        986
        on Second Reading. We hoped that, once the Government understood the strength of the opposition to that proposal throughout the country, they would relent.
        Our hopes have proved groundless. The Government stood as firmly against amendments in Committee as they have stood today against an amendment that came from their Back Benches. Clause 2 is damaging to charitable housing associations, is dogmatic and will do nothing to help housing conditions. On those grounds alone, we shall vote against giving the Bill a Third Reading.
        11.34 pm
        Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House and the country now understand that the Alliance supported the Bill on Second Reading but will vote against it on Third Reading.
        The extension of the right to buy, both to those to whom we believed that we gave it in the Housing Act 1980 and to those to whom it is given now for the first time, will be most welcome. The Conservative party has showed that it is the party of the whole nation—for council tenants as well as for owner-occupiers. Those who believed that they could ignore Labour party policies in the past have seen, by the actions of the GLC and Greenwich council, what happens if they do so. If they wish to maintain the right to buy and to have the same opportunities as most Labour Members of Parliament and many Labour councillors, they had better keep a Tory majority in the House at the next election. I ask all council tenants, not just those who live in my constituency, to consider carefully the commitments made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and to reject him and all those who support him at the next election. Council tenants deserve the right to own their homes, because it spreads wealth and mobility and is a very good thing.
        11.35 pm
        Mr. Stephen Ross: I was tempted not to speak on Third Reading, but because of the Minister's supreme optimism, which was not very convincing, I must add a few words.
        Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why does not the hon. Gentleman vote against the Bill?
        Mr. Ross: I shall certainly vote against it. I hope that the Minister's predictions will prove to be true, but I doubt it. We shall vote against Third Reading because it is immoral to oblige charitable housing associations to sell their post-1974 built properties and because we fear that the weakening of the present building control system could have disastrous results. The Minister may not be in office when that happens, but some Minister will have to pay the bill.
        I regret that, because of the guillotine, we have not had time fully to debate the Bill on Report. It will create confusion among the public and will destroy a service in which the professions have confidence, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is a chartered surveyor, said a few moments ago. There is doubt about the genuine independence of the proposed new system, and there will inevitably be pressures from commercial interests. Anyone who has served in local government knows that that is true. The Bill will lead to a lowering of standards at a time when we should be moving in the opposite direction.
        11.36 pm
        Mr. Ronald W. Brown: There were not so many hon. Members in the Chamber when we were discussing the Bill on Report—[Interruption.]
        Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are so many sub-committees going on around the Chamber, and so many people talking, that it is impossible to hear even an hon. Member who is standing just behind me.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I, too, am finding it difficult to hear.
        Mr. Brown: You were kind enough to call me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you said that, because of the length of other hon. Members' speeches, I could have only three minutes. I honoured my undertaking to you and sat down after those three minutes. However, in that short time, I asked the Minister two questions. I asked him to confirm that any trustees who are affected by clause 2 will be absolved of their responsibilities to the charity commissioners. It was a straightforward question, but, during a 15-minute speech, he deliberately refused to answer it. Will he assure the House now that any trustee who implements clause 2 will be absolved of his responsibilities? It is an important matter, because I and others who have served on charities have been taken to task by the charity commissioners, on issues much smaller than this, who claimed that we were abrogating our trusteeship. The House, and all those who volunteer to be trustees, should be assured that their future will not be prejudiced by clause 2.
        The Minister has waxed long throughout the evening and in Committee about the privilege of the right to buy. I asked him why he has not extended that to Crown estate tenants. Their homes are provided by public funds and those people are entitled to have the same right. If his argument is right for housing associations, it is right for Crown estate tenants. He did not find time to answer me. Why is the right to buy not available for everyone?
        My third question, which I did not put to him because I did not have time, is: does the Minister believe that the building regulations covered in part III will apply to scaffolding around buildings? Many local authorities use scaffolding which is now falling down. [Laughter.] One of my constituents was hurt by falling scaffolding. It is not amusing to me, because I am fighting for compensation for her. I cannot obtain it. The local authority and the contractor have got out of their responsibilities. I hope that the Minister can assure me on that point. I am dissatisfied with the Bill and shall vote against it.
        11.41 pm
        Mr. Stanley: I shall happily reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown).
        Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I object.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member within the Bar? I see that he is.
        Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, as the Minister has spoken, he can speak again only by leave of the House. I am objecting to his speech. I do not believe that he has had the leave of the House.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for the Minister to speak for a second time on Third Reading.
        Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. The answer to his first point is contained in clause 2(2), which provides the necessary protection for the trustees of charities.
        His second point about Crown estates—
        Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a further point of order?
        Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes. Is it not a fact that on Third Reading one may discuss only what is in the Bill and not what one would like to see in the Bill? The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke about what he thought was wrong because this and that were not in the Bill. I believe that that was out of order and, therefore, the Minister has no right to reply.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) wished to raise points about an amendment. He did not have time to do so.
        Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member was here. The Minister is now replying to that point.
        Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a further point of order?
        Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes. Whether or not I was here before, I am here now. I am raising a point of order now. It was not on Third Reading before, but it is now. What the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch raised on Report stage is not relevant to Third Reading. Third Reading is restricted severely to what is in the Bill, not to what was in an amendment in Committee or on Report. Whatever the hon. Member raised in Committee, it is not in the Bill, and therefore neither he nor the Minister has the right, according to Standing Orders, to raise those points.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 168.

        Division No. 102]

        [11.44 pm

        AYES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Body, Richard

        Alexander, Richard

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

        Ancram, Michael

        Bowden, Andrew

        Arnold, Tom

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

        Bright, Graham

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Brinton, Tim

        Banks, Robert

        Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

        Bendall, Vivian

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

        Brotherton, Michael

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

        Best, Keith

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Budgen, Nick

        Blackburn, John

        Burden, Sir Frederick

        989

        Butcher, John

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

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

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Chapman, Sydney

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Churchill, W. S.

        Knox, David

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

        Lang, Ian

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Langford-Holt, Sir John

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Latham, Michael

        Clegg, Sir Walter

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Cockeram, Eric

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Colvin, Michael

        Lee, John

        Corrie, John

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

        Critchley, Julian

        Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

        Crouch, David

        Loveridge, John

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Luce, Richard

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        McCrindle, Robert

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Durant, Tony

        MacGregor, John

        Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

        MacKay, John (Argyll)

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

        Eggar, Tim

        McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

        Emery, Sir Peter

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

        Eyre, Reginald

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Major, John

        Faith, Mrs Sheila

        Marland, Paul

        Farr, John

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Finsberg, Geoffrey

        Mates, Michael

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

        Mather, Carol

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

        Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

        Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

        Mawby, Ray

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Forman, Nigel

        Mayhew, Patrick

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Mellor, David

        Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Gardner, Sir Edward

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Moate, Roger

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Gow, Ian

        Moore, John

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Morgan, Geraint

        Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

        Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

        Greenway, Harry

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

        Grist, Ian

        Mudd, David

        Grylls, Michael

        Murphy, Christopher

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Myles, David

        Hamilton, Hon A.

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Needham, Richard

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hannam, John

        Neubert, Michael

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Newton, Tony

        Hastings, Stephen

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Osborn, John

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Heddle, John

        Parris, Matthew

        Henderson, Barry

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        Hicks, Robert

        Patten, John (Oxford)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Pawsey, James

        Holland, Philip (Carlton)

        Percival, Sir Ian

        Hooson, Tom

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Hordern, Peter

        Pollock, Alexander

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

        Porter, Barry

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Prior, Rt Hon James

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

        Rathbone, Tim

        Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

        Rees-Davies, W. R.

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Renton, Tim

        Kaberry, Sir Donald

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Ridley, Hon Nicholas

        990

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

        Rifkind, Malcolm

        Thompson, Donald

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        Thome, Neil (Ilford South)

        Rossi, Hugh

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Rost, Peter

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Royle, Sir Anthony

        Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

        Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Viggers, Peter

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Waddington, David

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Wakeham, John

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Walker, B. (Perth)

        Shepherd, Richard

        Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

        Silvester, Fred

        Wall, Sir Patrick

        Sims, Roger

        Waller, Gary

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Walters, Dennis

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Ward, John

        Speed, Keith

        Warren, Kenneth

        Spence, John

        Watson, John

        Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

        Wells, Bowen

        Sproat, Iain

        Wheeler, John

        Squire, Robin

        Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

        Stainton, Keith

        Whitney, Raymond

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Wickenden, Keith

        Stanley, John

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Steen, Anthony

        Williams, D.(Montgomery)

        Stevens, Martin

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Stokes, John

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Tapsell, Peter

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Mr. John Cope.

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        NOES

        Abse, Leo

        Dobson, Frank

        Allaun, Frank

        Dormand, Jack

        Alton, David

        Douglas, Dick

        Anderson, Donald

        Dubs, Alfred

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Dunnett, Jack

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Ashton, Joe

        Eadie, Alex

        Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

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

        Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

        English, Michael

        Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

        Ennals, Rt Hon David

        Beith, A. J.

        Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

        Ewing, Harry

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Faulds, Andrew

        Booth, Rt Hon Albert

        Flannery, Martin

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Ford, Ben

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Foulkes, George

        Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

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

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

        Freud, Clement

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

        Garrett, John (Norwich S)

        Buchan, Norman

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Golding, John

        Canavan, Dennis

        Graham, Ted

        Cant, R. B.

        Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

        Carmichael, Neil

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Cartwright, John

        Haynes, Frank

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

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

        Home Robertson, John

        Cohen, Stanley

        Hooley, Frank

        Coleman, Donald

        Howell, Rt Hon D.

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Crowther, Stan

        Huckfield, Les

        Cryer, Bob

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

        Davidson, Arthur

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

        Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

        Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

        John, Brynmor

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

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Deakins, Eric

        Kerr, Russell

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Dixon, Donald

        Lambie, David

        991

        Lamond, James

        Rowlands, Ted

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Sever, John

        Leighton, Ronald

        Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

        Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Short, Mrs Renée

        Litherland, Robert

        Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

        McElhone, Mrs Helen

        Silverman, Julius

        McKelvey, William

        Skinner, Dennis

        McTaggart, Robert

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

        Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

        Soley, Clive

        Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Mikardo, Ian

        Stallard, A. W.

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

        Stoddart, David

        Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

        Strang, Gavin

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Straw, Jack

        Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        Newens, Stanley

        Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Tilley, John

        Ogden, Eric

        Torney, Tom

        O'Halloran, Michael

        Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

        O'Neill, Martin

        Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

        Park, George

        Warden, Gareth

        Parker, John

        Welsh, Michael

        Parry, Robert

        White, Frank R.

        Penhaligon, David

        White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Whitlock, William

        Price, C. (Lewisham W)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Race, Reg

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

        Richardson, Jo

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

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Wilson, William (C'try SE)

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Winnick, David

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

        Woodall, Alec

        Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

        Wright, Sheila

        Robertson, George

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

        Roper, John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

        Mr. Norman Hogg and

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Mr. George Morton.

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

Nissan Car Project
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
11.55 pm
Mr. Hal Miller: By one of the strange coincidences of the arcane process by which subjects emerge for Adjournment debates, it is exactly 12 months to the day, but 25 minutes later, since I last rose to address the House on the subject of the Nissan car plant. While I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry as a good west midlands representative, who we are delighted has been given additional responsibilities in heading up a drive for greater innovation in the region, I must tell him that people in the west midlands will be looking with a critical eye at the conditions attaching to the Nissan project to see whether it is likely to prove of benefit to the region or to act to its detriment. That was by no means made clear when I last raised this subject and explains why I have been attempting for the past six weeks since the Secretary of State returned from Japan to have an opportunity to air these issues.
The subject is of importance in the context of our trade balance with Japan and the need for investment in Britain to offset that imbalance so as not to provoke an irresistible demand for limitations on the present open system of trade on which both the Japanese and British economies, but ours markedly more so, are crucially dependent. Whether we welcome the project must depend on the extent to which there will be local content in it. That has not been made clear and, so far as it has been made public, we are given to understand that the initial stage of the project is for the production of about 200,000 per year rising later to perhaps 500,000 cars. To put it in context, that figure of 200,000 cars is roughly equivalent to the current production of the Metro at Longbridge of 4,000 cars per week.
We should bear in mind that there is considerable overcapacity of production in the world and particularly in Europe, where there is an overhang of some 3·5 million vehicles, with the threat of increased installations in Japan but no such increase in the Japanese market. So the supposition must be that this increase in production is intended for export. Because of the various limitations on their exports and because of their comparative manufacturing efficiencies, the most profitable market for the Japanese at the moment is Europe.
Therefore, our attitude must be determined by how much local component content is to go into the vehicle. We have been told that it will be 60 per cent. rising to 80 per cent., but in a comparable co-operative venture in Italy between Nissan and Alfa Romeo the content is to be 80 per cent. from the start, with the Italians providing the power train. I must ask my hon. Friend whether he can divulge to us this evening what the content requirement is to be and whether it is to be weight or by value, which has relevance, especially to makers of components that are light in weight, such as electronics, the manufacturers of which would be arguing for value, while the heavier end would be more interested in the weight content. Attitudes will be dependent upon the definition.
The importance of the project to our components industry is easily understood when it is realised that only 33 per cent. of new registrations of passenger vehicles in

993
Britain in 1982 were built from British components. The gap lies with the assemblers of imported kits, notably Vauxhall and Talbot. That trend is increasing all the time, and only about 36 per cent. of Ford's United Kingdom requirement comes from local sources. The component industry is faced with the need to modernise its production facilities and upgrade its product to be internationally competitive at a time when its market is seriously declining and the prospects are for further decline. The introduction of the Nissan project on the initial scale of the Metro production without safeguards for component makers must represent a serious threat.
In the light of the overcapacity that I have described, we must also ask where the additional vehicles will be sold. The seriousness of the definition of "local content" can perhaps best be illustrated by the fact that a 60 per cent. requirement by value could be met without any British content except a battery and windscreen wiper, and perhaps a little trim, on the basis of ex-works price. That illustrates vividly the importance of a high starting content. The figures that I have given are hard; they are bassd on co-operative production.
If other factors entered into the price equation, such as transfer pricing between a head company and the subsidiary of a group, the distortion would be correspondingly greater and more damaging to Britain. There is a real anxiety and a real reason why component makers are looking to the Government for insistence on an 80 per cent. content from the start. If that is not possible within the negotiation, it should at least be established on a declared timetable from the start. But there are doubts as to whether it should be possible to enforce such a timetable once the operation had begun and public funds had been invested.
The content must be the criterion on which judgment is finally made as to whether the project will bring net benefit in terms of employment to the west midlands. The anxieties are real because, if the project is to go ahead on the basis of the original timetable of 1984–86, by now the Nissan company should have begun homologating the parts—that is, ordering, testing and installing them in production vehicles for assessment. Not only should that process have started, which it has not, but clearly it needs to be undertaken in this country if we are to have any security as to the fairness of the procedure. I very much hope that my hon. Friend can say something about what the agreement contains regarding the homologation of parts and how far ahead of the installation of the factory it should take place, as it is a real cause for concern.
Another factor relating to the critical nature of the 80 per cent. content is that Government-funded BL has recently announced agreement with Honda to increase the United Kingdom content of the Acclaim model to 74 per cent. and has undertaken to look for additional local sourcing on top of that figure. It was reported in the Financial Times, whose widely respected correspondent, Mr. Kenneth Gooding, wrote recently on the subject, that BL is looking in the new deal with Honda for the XX car for a local content of 80 per cent. If Nissan is allowed to establish here on the basis of 60 per cent., there is little chance that Honda would be content to abide by the higher requirement which apparently has recently been agreed.
The decision on the matter is of direct relevance also to the success of future products from BL and the take of that company from our component makers. Of the production of 200,000 cars by Nissan, one half was
994
intended to be exported, but I do not see how that condition could effectively be administered or insisted upon. I note that present expectations are that if the 50 per cent. export requirement were met, there would be a loss of market share to both Ford and BL of about 2 per cent. and of 1 per cent. to Vauxhall and another 1 per cent. to the others.
Mr. John Spellar: With regard to both exports and sales, and also as to import requirements, once Nissan is established here what sanctions can the Department of Industry use to enforce any of these arrangements?
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that it would be difficult to enforce anything once the public funds had been invested in the project. That is why the conditions need to be established and accepted before the project goes further. Hon. Members have a right to know what the conditions will be.
A project that meets the criteria on content that I have set out, introduces into this country new management techniques involving both men and materials and, in particular, achieves the reduction in the inventory that is so striking a feature of Japanese production, should be welcomed. It should be welcomed in the west midlands, where the Minister has recently assumed responsibility for spearheading the innovation drive. It will inevitably be regarded in the midlands as a test case of the Government's intentions towards the region.
The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday during the debate on the Budget were welcome as a first step towards dealing with the problems of the region but we want to know to what extent flesh is to be put on those bones. If the Nissan project is to be welcomed, why should it not be welcomed in the west midlands? Why should not the English Industrial Estates Corporation be allowed to provide the site and the buildings in the west midlands on terms as favourable as elsewhere in the country? Otherwise, we shall once more see new production, new methods, new machinery established in another part of the country, detracting from our possibilities, in the same way as a computer firm, established in the west midlands, has recently been diverted to Scotland because of the grant system. We have a great need in the west midlands for exactly that sort of production. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that it is in no narrow nationalist frame of mind that I raise these questions once more tonight. They are of vital concern and need a clear response.
12.11 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on his uncanny sense of timing in achieving the selection of the Adjournment debate tonight on the anniversary of the very day on which he last raised the subject. There must be some significance in that. The more fey among us may be able to advise me how this has happened. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on maintaining their constituency interest in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch has been tenacious in his support of the interests

995
of the west midlands and of its greatest industry. It is therefore understandable that he should take a close interest in this project. As a fellow west midlands Member with a personal and ministerial interest in the future of the motor industry, I am glad to have the opportunity to explain again how the Government see the Nissan project both nationally and in relation to the west midlands. It may be helpful to begin with some general remarks about the motor industry in the United Kingdom in partial response to my hon. Friend and as background to what I shall say about Nissan.
The Government recognise that the motor industry is a major and vital part of our manufacturing base. The west midlands is still its heart. The Government are determined to see that the west midlands car assembly and component industry is given the chance to fight back in reconquering our domestic markets and establishing a better presence in international markets. Great progress has been made recently by BL and a great tonic for automotive engineers in the west midlands and across the country would be a continuation of the 20 per cent.-plus market share currently achieved by BL. It may be difficult to maintain the magnificent level of the 25 per cent. figure reached recently by BL but we have great hopes that this figure marks the beginning of a new trend and that the company has begun the long march back into its traditional market areas and into the justified affections of the motoring public.
I need not remind the House, any of my hon. Friends or the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Spellar) that, under the present Administration, assistance of £1·23 billion has gone into BL. We have seen a second manifestation of the success of this aid in the production of the Maestro, which has received endorsement at the highest level of the Government. I should not neglect to mention—it would be unsuitable not to mention—the fact that there are other manufacturers in the United Kingdom. We hope that General Motors, Ford and Talbot will continue to be successful and increase their market share from their British plants and with their British-based models.
They, too, have made determined efforts over the past three years to bring British plants up to European levels of efficiency, and in many cases this has been achieved by the joint endeavours of management and work force. Provided that these improvements are maintained, there is a real prospect of reducing the far too high proportion of our vehicle needs which are met by imports and of reestablishing our export capabilities.
Vauxhall's recent decision to expand substantially the volume of cars produced in the United Kingdom—a vote of confidence in the United Kingdom as a manufacturing location—and the increasing proportion of Sierras which Ford plans to build here should help stabilise import penetration in cars during 1983 and bring it down below the appalling figure of 58 per cent. recorded last year.
While giving credit where it is due, we must at the same time recognise that the industry still faces severe difficulties. Its search for efficiency has taken place over a period when the automotive sector worldwide has suffered a prolonged and deep recession. The world's manufacturers produced 5 million fewer vehicles in 1981 than in 1979 and 1982 figures will unfortunately but doubtless show a further decline. For United Kingdom
996
manufacturers, particularly the traditionally strong exporters of commercial vehicles and components, this has meant significantly reduced volumes, as their markets grew smaller, and fierce competition for the business available.
For many companies therefore it has been a period of major readjustment, a process of sometimes painful rationalisation and reorganisation, which may not yet be complete. Even now the pace of recovery in world markets is still uncertain. What is important is that the industry should make every effort to ensure that, as the markets recover, it is in a position to match the competition. This will require continuing investment in new plant, products and processes. While this is a task for companies themselves, the Government are ready to help wherever they can.
Already, under its Support for Innovation programme, my Department is contributing towards research and development expenditure by the automotive and related industries, totalling around £150 million over the next few years. These are projects—for which up to one-third support is available—which will help bring on the new products and processes which will influence competitiveness in the second half of the 1980s.
A particular problem of which all of us in the Chamber tonight have no doubt been apprised by component suppliers in the west midlands area is the gap between the first stages of research and development and taking a product to market. I would commend to the House the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his contribution to the Budget debate:
"I am extending the support for the innovation programme by an innovation-linked investment scheme, to which we are allocating about £40 million. Projects will be eligible for investment support under the scheme, either when development work is being supported by the Department of Industry or if it would have been eligible for such support had the firm applied. This addition will help to fill a gap and will bring products out of the backroom and into the showroom."—[Official Report, 21 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 556.]
My right hon. Friend, his colleagues and I will have to fine-tune this proposition, but I hope that my hon. Friend finds some reassurance there. I hope he agrees with my analysis that it is this gap that our friends in the industry in the west midlands have constantly referred to, and we seek to use this policy to help them drive through that gap and out into the market.
There are in addition other forms of selective assistance available, including, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned in another part of that Budget speech, the re-launch of the small engineering firms investment scheme—SEFIS 2—with £100 million over three years. It is worth noting that the west midlands gets about twice as much SEFIS support per head of population as the national average.
There is a long way to go before our motor industry is fully competitive. I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is the companies, not the Government, who can make reality of the hopes of revival, though we obviously do what we can to help. I believe that there is now, however, a real prospect of a substantial and viable motor manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom for years to come. As I shall explain, the Government's view is that Nissan's coming here, on the right terms—I emphasise to my hon. Friend, on the right terms—would make a major, indeed unique, contribution to that objective.
Mr. John Spellar: Perhaps the Minister will explain, first, how bringing an extra 200,000 capacity into the country will assist British companies' viability. Secondly, even after the terms are negotiated and the company is established here, what mechanism is there in the Department of Industry to enforce those terms?
Mr. Butcher: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall try to reach those points as quickly as I can.
I come now to the main subject of the debate tonight—the prospective Nissan investment. A year ago, in the equivalent debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, then Under-Secretary of State for Industry, set out for the House how the Government saw the Nissan project. Now, one year later, I am glad to have the opportunity to do so again. I make no apology to the House for going over some of the same ground as my hon. Friend did. I do so for two reasons—first, because our overall attitude to Nissan's project is much the same as it was then, and, frankly, because it is in the nature of talks that cover matters of commercial confidentiality that there is not much that I can say to the House on the details of our discussions with the company.
My hon. Friend outlined last year the general reasons why the Government welcomed inward investment and specifically inward investment from Japan. I should like to run through once again why we have welcomed the prospect of a fully-integrated manufacturing operation in the United Kingdom from Japan's second largest motor manufacturer. In particular, I shall explain why we should welcome such a project, despite suggestions from some quarters that it could impede the recovery of present United Kingdom motor manufacturers, including BL. This is an argument which the Government have thought about carefully, but we do not think it valid. On the contrary, we believe that the right Nissan project will be of considerable benefit to the British and European motor industries.
Our industry's doubts about Japanese investment in the United Kingdom are understandable enough. It has had first-hand experience of the competitive strength of Japanese vehicles, in third markets and in Europe and the United Kingdom. Its fear is that allowing a Japanese company to build cars in the United Kingdom could, under certain circumstances, simply provide another route, as my hon. Friend said, for Japanese products to displace its own, avoiding the voluntary restraint exercised by the Japanese industry on direct exports since 1975.
The Government attach importance to the inter-industry talks between the SMMT and JAMA, and would not be prepared to see them undermined by a simple assembly operation in the United Kingdom. We are well aware of the risk that a certain type of investment by a Japanese manufacturer might not benefit the United Kingdom. However, it has always been understood that Nissan's project would amount to a fully integrated manufacturing operation, with high local content. We do not see this as a threat to the United Kingdom motor industry, but rather as an opportunity. Let me explain, in the few minutes that are left, why we take this view.
998
Nissan is the leading Japanese exporter of cars into the United Kingdom, where Datsun cars have become well established. It is the fourth largest motor manufacturer in the world. Its competitive strength, like that of other Japanese vehicle manufacturers, is immense. Previous Japanese investors in the United Kingdom have shown that Japanese management practices and manufacturing techniques do not work only in Japan. They can establish, and have established, highly successful and competitive operations in the United Kingdom with British work forces. These companies have become a part of British industry, as their European and United States predecessors in inward investment have done. There is no doubt that Nissan would be an efficient and highly competent vehicle producer based in the United Kingdom, where the "demonstration effect" of its practices and its competitive edge would provide a valuable stimulus to British industry.
Existing car manufacturers and assemblers are unlikely positively to welcome further competition in the European car market, whether from Nissan or from anyone else, but that is a very different thing from saying that Nissan's coming would not be good for the vehicle manufacturing and assembly industry in the United Kingdom. The question is whether the British industry, including Nissan, would be a stronger or a weaker industry.
This is where the component factor comes in. If a Japanese manufacturer was displacing other domestic manufacturers' sales with cars which had a much lower local content, the net effect on the domestic component industry could be negative, even allowing for displacement of imports and for direct exports. That is why the Government have always insisted on, and Nissan has always proposed, high local content. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, then Minister for Industry, explained in his original announcement on 29 January 1981, the company's objective would be to produce at 80 per cent. local content, after a build-up from 60 per cent.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the difficulty of raising the local content after the event, so to speak. I should like to respond to that matter in greater detail. We do not want a kit assembly operation. We want the engine to be built in that manufacturing facility. The Government would not welcome an assembly operation, or a kit operation from Nissan or anyone else, if that were proposed. This high local commitment will bring new business to the component industry, if we handle the negotiations correctly. It will also bring it valuable new relationships with a sophisticated and demanding customer.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o' clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Hospitals (Closures)
  Hospitals (Closures)
  Dundee (Unemployment Statistics)
  Dundee (Unemployment Statistics)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Mail Surveillance
  Mail Surveillance
ENERGY
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Gas Flaring
  Gas Flaring
  Gas Production
  Gas Production
TRADE
  Libya (Maritime Cargo Reservation)
  Libya (Maritime Cargo Reservation)
  British Registered Ships
  British Registered Ships
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Lined Glasses
  Lined Glasses
  Hydrographic Surveying
  Hydrographic Surveying
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Vacancies
  Job Vacancies
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Technology Training
  Technology Training
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Equal Pay Act
  Equal Pay Act
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Allowance
  Personal Allowance
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Taxation and Rates
  Taxation and Rates
  Poverty Trap
  Poverty Trap
PRIME MINISTER
  Karl Marx Centenary
  Karl Marx Centenary
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Bedford Prison
  Bedford Prison
  Public Disorder (London)
  Public Disorder (London)
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Offensive Weapons
  Offensive Weapons
  Remand Prisoners (Security)
  Remand Prisoners (Security)
  Prison Service (Industrial Disputes)
  Prison Service (Industrial Disputes)
  Amusement-with-Prizes Machines
  Amusement-with-Prizes Machines
  Police Consultative Committees
  Police Consultative Committees
  Police (Tape Recorders)
  Police (Tape Recorders)
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Commercial Television
  Commercial Television
  Police (Community and Race Relations Training)
  Police (Community and Race Relations Training)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Surplus Agricultural Production (Exports)
  Surplus Agricultural Production (Exports)
  Pig Feed (Copper Inclusions)
  Pig Feed (Copper Inclusions)
WALES
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Children (Welfare Payments)
  Children (Welfare Payments)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Prices)
  Drugs (Prices)
  Deaf Persons (Representations)
  Deaf Persons (Representations)
  Foreign Medical Treatment
  Foreign Medical Treatment
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Calderdale Health Authority (Laundry Services)
  Calderdale Health Authority (Laundry Services)
  Hospitals (Smoking)
  Hospitals (Smoking)
  Maternity Services, Wolverhampton
  Maternity Services, Wolverhampton
  Sodium Valproate
  Sodium Valproate
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Caribbean (Defence Installations)
  Caribbean (Defence Installations)
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
DEFENCE
  Air Cadets
  Air Cadets
  Service Personnel (Injury Compensation)
  Service Personnel (Injury Compensation)
  Martin Ketterick
  Martin Ketterick
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Speywood Laboratories
  Speywood Laboratories
INDUSTRY
  Car Manufactures
  Car Manufactures
  Steel Industry (Employment Statistics)
  Steel Industry (Employment Statistics)
  European Community Research Council
  European Community Research Council
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mentally Ill Persons (Group Homes)
  Mentally Ill Persons (Group Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Short-stay Hospital Accommodation)
  Elderly Persons (Short-stay Hospital Accommodation)
  Psychiatric Day Hospitals
  Psychiatric Day Hospitals
  Mentally Ill Persons (Hostels)
  Mentally Ill Persons (Hostels)
  Day Centres
  Day Centres
  Sheltered Workshops
  Sheltered Workshops
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Pupils (Payment)
  Pupils (Payment)
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Dundee University
  Dundee University
  Pupil Numbers
  Pupil Numbers
TRANSPORT
  Axle Weights
  Axle Weights
  Traffic and Vehicle Examiners
  Traffic and Vehicle Examiners
  Rear Lights
  Rear Lights
  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Motor Vehicles (Atmospheric Pollution)
  Motor Vehicles (Atmospheric Pollution)
ENVIRONMENT
  Lead (Environmental Standards Monitoring)
  Lead (Environmental Standards Monitoring)
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Vacant Land Sales
  Vacant Land Sales
  Home Insulation (Grants)
  Home Insulation (Grants)
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Council House Sales (London)
  Council House Sales (London)
  Dog Warden Scheme
  Dog Warden Scheme
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Building Land (Mid-Sussex)
  Building Land (Mid-Sussex)
  Peterlee Development Corporation
  Peterlee Development Corporation
  Council Houses and Flats (Completions)
  Council Houses and Flats (Completions)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Urban and Derelict Land Grants
  Urban and Derelict Land Grants
  Local Authority Housing Estates (Letting Assistance)
  Local Authority Housing Estates (Letting Assistance)
  Housing Revenue Account (Rent Contribution)
  Housing Revenue Account (Rent Contribution)
  Heads of Housholds (Statistics)
  Heads of Housholds (Statistics)
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Water Industry (Pay Negotiations)
  Water Industry (Pay Negotiations)
  Housing and Building Control Bill (Right to Buy)
  Housing and Building Control Bill (Right to Buy)
  Tree Planting (National Campaign)
  Tree Planting (National Campaign)
  Dwellings (Shortfall)
  Dwellings (Shortfall)
  Gleneagles Agreement (Rugby Football)
  Gleneagles Agreement (Rugby Football)
  Shared Ownership Schemes
  Shared Ownership Schemes
  Mortgage Funds
  Mortgage Funds
  Construction Workers
  Construction Workers
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Stansted Inquiry
  Stansted Inquiry
  National Garden Festival Initiative
  National Garden Festival Initiative

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

Lord Richardson of Duntisbourne
The Right Honourable Gordon William Humphreys Richardson, MBE, having been created Baron Richardson of Duntisbourne, of Duntisbourne in the County of Gloucestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cobbold and the Lord Franks.
The Viscount Bridgeman The Viscount Bridgeman—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.

Cashless Pay
2.48 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the tenth finding of the recent inquiry into the water dispute, which recognises that "wherever possible payment should be made by cheque or credit transfer."
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the findings of the committee of inquiry are a matter for the parties concerned. Cashless pay offers considerable advantages and, on 10th March 1983, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment issued a consultative document setting out proposals for updating the law on the payment of wages, with a view to encouraging the greater use of non-cash methods of payment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for emphasising the importance to industry that a step of this character could have. Does he understand that, unless the Government take some steps, progress in this field will be very slow? Can he at least give a full assurance that bank accounts are private between the depositor and the bank and cannot be seen by spouses, whether male or female?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can give my noble friend the assurance that the Government will do what they can to encourage the use of cashless pay. But there is no intention of compelling people to accept cashless pay if they do not wish to do so. As regards the rights of spouses to inspect their other spouses' accounts, that is fairly wide of the original Question, but I think that the noble Earl is quite right.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Government's attitude of caution
1100
in this matter, in seeking all possible consultation, is one that commands the support of us on this side of the House? There are many complications, some of which may not yet have been thought of, and it is desirable that the widest possible consultation should be held before any definitive steps are taken.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for those remarks. He is aware that the Government are, at the moment, in the process of consulting with both the TUC and the CBI, and there is a measure of agreement that the existing state of affairs is not satisfactory, How it is improved will, of course, result from those discussions.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the phrase "cashless pay" a little discouraging?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is certainly very unpleasant, but it is accurate. I hope that it might be found to be a better phrase than what the noble and learned Lord insinuates.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that cheques will be preferable owing to the weight of the new £1, which will no doubt cause gentlemen's pockets and ladies' handbags to weigh a great deal more than they have done previously?
Earl Ferrers: Of course, my Lords, credit transfers would be even lighter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government agree that, while it is clearly desirable to consult the TUC and the CBI, yet it might in the case of this industry now, and of other industries later, as this policy continues, be a good thing if the Government could find some means of consulting precisely the spouses, because without that there is no means of knowing what they think about the changeover to cashless pay? Is it not the case that, in the legal and social structure of our country, wives tend to be dependent, and this should not go without consideration?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as 44 per cent. of all employees in the country at the moment are paid by cash, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would accept that there would be some difficulty over consulting all spouses.

Cruise Missiles: Launching Authority
2.52 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the event of the unavailability for whatever reason of the President or the Vice-President of the United States, authority to launch cruise missiles from the United Kingdom would devolve on the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and if so whether, in

1101
the light of events at the time of the attempt on Mr. Reagan's life, they have discussed these matters with the Speaker.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have every confidence that our long-standing arrangements with the Americans, under which any use of cruise missile bases in an emergency would be subject to a joint political decision, would work successfully with the President or his successor in accordance with the established United States constitutional procedures.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord the Minister to answer the Question? Have the Government consulted with the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, on whom the decision would devolve if, for any reason, the President or the Vice-President were unavailable?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. The reason I do not know the answer to it is because I do not think that it would necessarily be appropriate.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the importance of this question: that a situation could arise in which, under dual control or dual consultation, the use of cruise missiles from United Kingdom bases may have to be authorised by the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister? Will the Minister say what contingency plans there are if the Prime Minister is again caught, as in the case of the Falklands, by an attack which, to use her words, comes "out of the blue" in a situation where the President of the United States is perhaps at a sporting event while the British Prime Minister is perhaps attending her hairdresser, and someone has to make a decision?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it would depend upon the circumstances, but we would expect our bilateral arrangements to work in exactly the same way as if it were the President himself or the Prime Minister herself taking the decision.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, has the noble Lord's attention been drawn to an interesting leading article in this morning's edition of the Daily Telegraph, which suggests that the missiles might be manned and operated by the Royal Air Force and the warhead armed by the United States? Are the Government not going to pay at least some attention to their supporters regarding this matter?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the first half of the noble Lord's question is "Yes", while the answer to the second half of his question is "No".
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that there is considerable feeling that this question might, on the other hand, be unimportant? Will not the noble Lord confirm that cruise is extremely slow as a missile and therefore could not be used as a first strike weapon? If, therefore, it were
1102
launched, it would inevitably be launched in retaliation for an attack by the Russians. Surely, then, the question whether one nation or two nations agree to launch it is unimportant. It will be launched.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. The Government could not have put it better themselves.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that sometimes there have been cases in which missiles have almost been launched as a result of false information, given by computer or by other means? Therefore, what is intended to be a second strike can become a first strike. Is the noble Lord not aware of the fact that there is an increasing feeling in the country that it is a gross dereliction of duty by the Government to allow a position to arise in which a matter of life and death to the people of this country can be determined by the action of a foreign national?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have made it clear on behalf of the Government previously, but perhaps I should do so again, that the agreements between the United States and this country are reviewed and reaffirmed when a British Prime Minister or a President of the United States first takes office. The arrangements were last reaffirmed by President Reagan and previously by the Prime Minister when she was first elected to No. 10. The Government have satisfied themselves that the current arrangements remain effective.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister why he himself would consider it "inappropriate"—I quote his word—to inquire into the arrangements for the American decision to launch these missiles from British soil in the event of Nos. 1 and 2 in America being out of action at the time when the crisis came?
Lord Belstead: Because, my Lords, although I acknowledge that there is a clearly established line of succession in the United States for the office of President, the noble Lord would not expect me to go into details publicly about who might take over presidential responsibilities for the release of nuclear weapons in the event of the President or his successor being absent.

The School Meals Service
2.57 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards local education authorities which cease to provide school meals for primary and secondary school pupils; and what alternative arrangements should be made for the care and supervision of pupils during the lunch break.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady David, in answer to a supplementary question which she asked me on 10th March, it is no part of Government policy that the school meals service should be abolished. Public expenditure forecasts adequately provide for its continuation. It is, however, a matter for individual local education authorities to determine whether they wish to provide a paid meals service. Equally, it is for individual authorities to determine what arrangements are made for the supervision of pupils at midday in the light of their general responsibilities.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. May I ask him whether he agrees that there are some local authorities which are not providing a service except for children who have to have free meals? May I ask him how those children will be kept secret, so to speak? The intention is, is it not, that they should not be recognised as having free meals? If no other children are having free meals, how is this to be achieved? Could the Minister say what the department's view is about what is going to happen to those children who could possibly be wandering around the streets at lunchtime?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, so far as the provision of school meals is concerned, to date only three local education authorities—Dorset, Herefordshire and Worcestershire and Lincolnshire—have abolished paid meals, and then only in primary schools. The Merton authority plan to abolish their paid meals service in both primary and secondary schools as from September of this year. However, the Government are not aware of any other authorities which intend to abolish paid meals. So far as concerns the question of dealing—if that is the right word—with the children who get free meals, obviously this is a sensitive issue. It is for individual schools to work out how they are going to do it. Again, it is up to the local education authorities themselves to say how the children are supervised during meal times.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, if children are let out and go wandering around the streets looking for their dinner in cafes, is there not a danger that this might contribute to truancy? Will the Minister try to monitor what is happening in schools where authorities have abandoned regular school dinners, to ascertain whether all the children come back to school in the afternoon or whether afternoon truancy increases?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, obviously children go and find their meals elsewhere, even where education authorities are providing a full school meals service. A survey of the school meals service is being conducted, but which authorities have taken part is confidential. I could not say whether the survey includes the three authorities I have named which have cut down on their school meals service.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, could the noble Earl answer the question about the position in the authorities which have ceased to provide meals for those children who are statutorily entitled to free meals and milk? Would not the Minister agree that as packed lunches are notoriously more expensive than centrally
1104
cooked meals the recent increase in child benefit will be largely taken up in paying for packed lunches where meals are not provided?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, there is a statutory duty on all authorities to provide free meals for those entitled to them. As to whether packed meals are cheaper or more expensive than centrally cooked meals, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer, but presumably Merton think that they must be, otherwise they would not be doing it.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is perhaps not so much a question of truancy as, with so many mothers going out to work, of children being hungry unless they are supplied with some kind of hot or cold meal, both of which are good?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this is very much up to the mothers. In fact, before they made this decision the majority of school children in Merton were bringing their meals with them, anyway.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent study of 10-year-olds showed that one child out of five leaves for school without an adequate breakfast? Would not the Minister agree that for many of the children of poorer families the school meal is the major meal of the day? Would he not agree that it is of the greatest importance that there should be some level of nutritional value in the school meal, as there was before the 1980 Act?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I believe that we went over this ground about a fortnight ago. The whole idea is that poorer children are provided with free meals. That is the whole reason behind the Government's thinking.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that if the Government had not brought pressure on local authorities to cut expenditure on school meals by 50 per cent. within a short period of two years, the situation would not have been as difficult as it is now?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is up to anyone to suggest that, if anything is cut, pressures are bound to be there. It is the feeling on our side of the House that cuts have to be made in some shape or form, and this is one of the alternatives available.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us think it is a piece of nonsense for him to say that it is not the Government's policy to end school meals, when it was the Government's own Bill, which they forced through Parliament, which is allowing local authorities to do this? Is he not ashamed that, after all these years, school meals are being ended in our schools?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, that is a matter of the noble Lord's opinion as opposed to my opinion.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Earl not confirm that it was the Government's Bill, which they put through Parliament against all the Opposition parties, which permits the ending of school meals?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it does not permit the ending of school meals to children who deserve them most.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Earl knows what I mean—it is the ending of school meals for all the rest of our children. It is a matter of some importance that hundreds of thousands of our children are being deprived of school meals because of this Government.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I really must argue this with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. It will cost about £1,000 million to introduce free school meals for every child in the country, and I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, is suggesting that. There is money available for local education authorities who wish to provide a meals service. In fact, some two-thirds of local education authorities in this country are providing a school meals service free, even to children above the base limit.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that the health of school children can only be safeguarded if there is a nutritional level within those free school meals to which certain children from poorer families are entitled? It is that which worries us, when so much of the cost on local education authorities is going into other areas except food.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I thought that I answered this on 10th March, when I said two things. First, that there is a survey being done on this, which will be available next year. Also, there is no nutrition in food that is being wasted, and a great deal of food was being wasted before this legislation was passed.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on new economic initiatives for Northern Ireland.
With the leave of the House, I should like in the normal way to say a brief word about the timing of the two short debates this afternoon, standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Soames and Lord Harvington. Following the principle that the mover shall be entitled to approximately 15 minutes, and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, may I suggest that other speakers in both today's debates should limit their speeches to a maximum of 11 minutes. Perhaps I should point out that if any noble Lord should speak longer than that, he will do so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, one is always diffident about speaking on the Third Reading of a Private Bill that has gone through one of your Lordships' committees, but the matters on which I wish to speak are really consequential upon consideration by a Select Committee. Anyone who knows Liverpool Street Station and the area around it will readily recognise that redevelopment is very long overdue, not only because of the number of trains and passengers which use the station but also because of the narrow bottle-neck after one leaves Bethnal Green. This is a plan for the redevelopment of not only the whole of the station but also of the whole of the area around it. I emphasise that because I have no wish to hold up the work of redevelopment.
But redevelopment will involve closure of the adjoining Broad Street Station and building a new station at Worship Street, which is about half a mile from the existing station and away from the City. On 26th January, the Secretary of State announced his consent to the Broad Street closure and that this consent was conditional upon British Rail providing a substitute bus service between Worship Street and Liverpool Street Stations, without charge to rail passengers. The development will therefore affect also the North London rail line which at present runs via Dalston Junction into Broad Street. With the closure of Broad Street Station, the intention is that the line shall end at the new station which is to be constructed at Worship Street. I understand that some one and a half million passengers use the North London line each year, nearly 200,000 of them from the station at Dalston Junction and most of them travelling during business hours on weekdays. It is a very important City rail link.
The position is made more complicated by the proposal of British Rail to construct a new curve at Graham Road, Hackney, so that the North London line will in future continue to the Cambridge line, which then goes to Liverpool Street Station. It is the intention of British Rail that the line from Dalston to the new Worship Street Station, will then be closed, after the Graham Road link has been constructed some years ahead. This part of the scheme has been criticised because there could be a situation arising in which there would be no rail link to the City from Dalston Junction. That is considered to be a very important factor. If this should happen, which seems likely to be the case, there would be the problem of a one and a quarter mile viaduct of arches, where there are employed some 700 people, which would then be lying idle and for which refurbishment is badly needed.
The Transport Users' Consultative Committee for London gave support to a proposal that instead of building the new station at Worship Street there should be the provision of temporary high-level platforms on the existing North London line viaduct until the Broad Street services could be diverted to Liverpool Street, once the proposed new Graham Road, Hackney, link had been constructed. It must be emphasised that the Hackney, Islington, Camden and

1107
Brent Councils support the provision of temporary high level platforms and the further proposal that there should be a permanent high level platform over the redevelopment site so that the present North London line could be retained.
In his announcement, the Secretary of State stated that, although there are strong arguments against high level platforms, his consent with regard to Broad Street and the building of the new Worship Street Station does not prevent the Railways Board from adopting the high level option, if they wish to consider the matter at some future date. The Secretary of State suggested that the proposal for high level platforms would entail additional cost and delay. But it must be pointed out that the GLC also supports the high level platforms proposal and the retention of the existing North London line, and has offered to fund the proposal at a cost estimated at some £3½ million.
It must also be pointed out that the board would need to meet the cost of the new station at Worship Street, the cost of the Graham Road curve link, and also the provision of the bus service from Worship Street to Liverpool Street. I understand that the GLC has had discussions with British Rail, but there has been no agreement. Whether the cost of all those items would be approximate to the £3½ million cost of the platforms is one on which I have no information, but it cannot be very far from that.
The borough councils involved in the North London line favour the high level platforms, and particularly the retention of the existing line. If noble Lords have had an opportunity, as I have, to read the Third Reading debate in the other place on 1st December, they will see that Members of Parliament from all parties presented a very strong case for the continuance of the present North London line as it is at the moment.
There is also the problem that since 1978 the central Government and the Hackney Borough Council have committed nearly £5 million through the inner city partnership to provide for economic development and environmental improvement schemes within the Borough of Hackney. Some £1 million has already been spent on those schemes in the Shoreditch area. Male unemployment in the Hackney Borough is double the London average. Therefore, these schemes are really vital under the inner city partnership, and the retention of the City rail link from Dalston Junction is considered absolutely essential for these schemes for commercial and shopping redevelopment. I must point out that from Hackney there is no tube connection at all, and, if the present Dalston line to the City is closed, the only alternative, other than going round by the Graham Road link, which has yet to be constructed, would be on crowded streets.
It has been suggested that the Liverpool Street redevelopment scheme will take some six years, at least, to complete. There is no definite timetable for the construction of the Graham Road curve link so as to continue the present North London line into Liverpool Street via that curve instead of through Dalston Junction, and British Rail has said there will be considerable difficulty in moving forward the date of that construction. It will be noted that in the Secretary of State's announcement on 26th January
1108
there is nothing in the Secretary of State's consent to the closure of Broad Street that provides any guarantee whatever for the future. There is nothing mandatory on the construction of the Graham Road curve, there is nothing mandatory on when the Graham Road link will start, or even to say that it will be constructed. It could be that, at the end of the long period of development of Liverpool Street Station, British Rail may decide not to proceed with the Graham Road link. That presumably would mean that the North London line would finish at the new Worship Street Station as a permanency, or even mean the closure of that vital link altogether. If the Graham Road link is not to be constructed, it may then be far too late to talk of having high level platforms to continue this essential rail link from Dalston Junction to the City. That is why I say these matters arise from the approval of the redevelopment scheme, not the actual redevelopment scheme.
Therefore, it would seem that the Secretary of State should impose one of two alternative conditions. Either the provision of temporary high level platforms to enable the North London line to run on the existing viaduct from Dalston Junction should be made mandatory, as should the eventual construction of permanent high level platforms over the Liverpool Street redevelopment site, which we understand presents no engineering difficulties. Alternatively, the Secretary of State should make mandatory conditions for the construction of the Graham Road curve at Hackney, so that the North London line will eventually be diverted to new low level platforms in the new Liverpool Street redeveloped station.
My Lords, I am not speaking against the redevelopment scheme at Liverpool Street and the surrounding area, but only urging that the Secretary of State should lay down additional conditions so as to ensure that the points I have raised can be given consideration.
3.16 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House at this point, but, if I may, I will speak very briefly on this Private Bill. I feel I should declare an interest as President of the National Council of Inland Transport. Let me say at the outset, as Lord Underhill has emphasised, that there is no quarrel with the purpose of this Bill, which is to improve the facilities at present jointly provided by Liverpool Street and Broad Street Stations. Equally, the method of doing this, by providing seven new platforms at Liverpool Street Station at the low level, will not only improve the railway operating side of that station but also make it more convenient for the passengers using it.
I wish simply to raise two points, both of them connected with the North London line trains at present routed via Dalston Junction into Broad Street Station at the high level. The first point is that following the hearing before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for London in April 1982, the Secretary of State sanctioned the closure of Broad Street Station, but not of the North London line. In doing so, reference was made to what is known as the Graham Road curve, which will in the future provide the access for trains off the North London line into the

1109
new low level platforms. But, my Lords, there seems to be no firm commitment that this access line will indeed ever be built, nor, as I understand it, is any financial provision made for doing this. Without such a commitment, it is contended that the way would be open in the future not to proceed with this new access line at all, and thus in effect to close the North London line by indirect means, through procedure which was ostensibly concerned with the closure of a station. Your Lordships have heard the number of people using this station at the moment, and you will be aware of the pressure that London Transport commuter services are already under.
I come to my other point. I am sorry to make a technical point, but I think it is important. It is that under the present proposals the scheme provides for a temporary station to be built at Worship Street at considerable expense. It would, of course, be at the high level, and would handle the North London line trains which would temporarily be terminated there. It is 600 yards to the north, and a bus service would have to be provided. It is clear that these temporary facilities will be a good deal less convenient than the existing ones at Broad Street Station, and much less so than the eventual low level ones at Liverpool Street Station. The possibility arises, therefore, that while they are in use they will deter a number of passengers who currently use this route, and your Lordships will be aware that this would be a bad thing for British Rail. The joint effect might be that there would be such a falling off in passengers on these services that when the time came it could be argued that there was no need to provide the Graham Road curve at all and that the North London line should be closed.
To avoid this possibility, it is suggested that British Rail should have another look at the necessity for the temporary station at Worship Street. Although it is not apparent from British Rail's plan JC2, a survey on site seems to indicate that there is in fact more room at the high level than is indicated there. As an alternative to the station at Worship Street, it appears to be possible for British Rail to construct high-level platforms for the North London line trains in the space between the existing Broad Street Station and the western trainshed, using parts of the existing viaduct for the construction of temporary platforms.
I have a copy of plan JC2 on which the actual dimensions of the viaduct and the trainshed have been superimposed, and it would certainly appear from this that such a scheme is possible. Indeed, there seems to be no need to route the track connections to the temporary high-level platforms on the eastern side of the existing viaduct between Worship Street and Pinder Street, where they would interfere with the new works, but tracks for the North London line could be provided on the western side of the existing viaduct and so reach the location proposed for the temporary high-level platforms. I hope that the Minister will ensure that these proposals are carefully considered.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am glad that both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Viscount have given a welcome to the development of Liverpool Street Station which is the subject of this Bill. Indeed, the Government themselves acknowledge
1110
the need for the development and give their support. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that this afternoon there should be what I might call a rehearsal of the arguments put forward during the course of your Lordships' Select Committee inquiry into this Bill. At the end of the day—if my memory serves me right the Select Committee sat for about eight days—the committee was of the opinion that the Bill should proceed, subject only to the undertakings given at that time.
Perhaps, I may just outline the position. Broad Street Station provides a very limited service for the North London line and for peak services to Watford. The new proposals provide for the closure of Broad Street, and the Secretary of State has given his consent to this while Liverpool Street Station is being redeveloped. In lieu of Broad Street a temporary station—Worship Street—will open and will be used for a period of about four to six years. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that no time had been given. He said that it might well be in excess of six years. I do not quarrel with that, but certainly the estimates that have been provided suggest that a period of between four and six years is more appropriate while that work is going on and until the Liverpool Street accommodation can take care of the new service.
The Graham Road curve which links the North London line with the Cambridge line into Liverpool Street after that station has been redeveloped will necessitate the Secretary of State having to give his consent for the closure of Worship Street temporary station. The Secretary of State will have to give consideration to that at the time the British Railways Board puts forward a specific proposal for that closure. Meantime, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave consent to the Broad Street closure subject to a dedicated bus service between the two stations. That consent to the closure of Broad Street made it quite clear that there is nothing in the consent that was meant to prevent the board adopting a high level option if it so wished.
In my right honourable friend's letter of 25th January signifying consent to the Broad Street closure he said, in paragraph 7:
"The consent to the closure of Broad Street is therefore conditional on the provision of such a service which is to be timetabled so that as far as possible each train arriving at Worship Street will be met by a bus, or buses, to take passengers to the vicinity of Liverpool Street station and that a bus, or buses, will leave Liverpool Street at a convenient time to allow passengers to join each train leaving Worship Street. The service is also to allow transfer between train and bus at Worship Street under cover, and it is to be provided without additional charge to those holding valid rail tickets to and from Worship Street Station. Section 54, subsection (5)(b) of the Transport Act 1968 allows the Secretary of State to vary or revoke conditions imposed in connection with the closure. It follows that if the board's experience of providing the dedicated service suggests to them that the use which is made out of it is not sufficient to justify its continuation or that the Secretary of State's objectives could be achieved more satisfactorily by an alternative arrangement, it will be open to the board to apply to have the conditions varied".
Clearly the Secretary of State could not over-ride that power by binding himself at this stage not to exercise the power in that section of the Act. I am, therefore, not able to commit my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to giving a guarantee that the dedicated bus service will be provided for the entire

1111
time that the Worship Street station is to be used as a temporary station.
If the British Railways Board asks for a variation the grounds would have to be substantial, and it would be for the board to prove to my right honourable friend that a variation is justified. The board itself has a commitment to provide a service between the two stations. I imagine that while there are numbers of passengers or customers of that service who still require it then the need will prevail, and I am quite sure that the board accepts that situation.
That is really as far as I feel I am able to go in responding to the pleas that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and, indeed, the noble Viscount.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I was a member of the committee and nothing has been said in the House this afternoon which was not carefully considered by the committee over a period of some seven days' sitting.
We fully realised the inconvenience of the Worship Street station and we did also think that there might be a falling off of its use due to this inconvenience. We were therefore concerned, as one speaker was concerned, that the Graham Road curve should, in fact, be constructed and that the line should, therefore, ultimately go in to Liverpool Street.
Certain assurances were given by British Rail on this point, with one or two conditions, but we also inserted a condition, which was agreed, that the Worship Street station would continue in use until the Graham Street curve was constructed. This may not be absolutely cast iron, but I think that with the other assurances given by British Rail there will not be any question but that we shall see the line coming in at low level.
This matter was considered by the Commons Committee on very much the same grounds. Nothing very new came in when it came before us. There was some increased emphasis on the importance of the existing railway, possibly to the new development in Hackney. I therefore think that it would be a very great mistake if we were to go over all this ground again. I am not pretending that it was not difficult. Indeed, I said that our decision, whatever it was, was bound to be wrong in the view of some people.
On Question, Bill read a third time, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

World Economy and Currency Stability
3.29 p.m.
Lord Soames Lord Soames rose to call attention to the need for a more active and vigorous world economy and for greater international currency stability as a contribution thereto; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. There are happily some solid signs of incipient recovery in the world economy. Housing starts are well up on last year's figures for January and February in the United States, motor-car manufacturers are seeing
1112
an upturn in orders, and in a number of industrial sectors the inventory pipeline is beginning at last to fill. If this trend continues it should not be long before the first ripples of recovery are seen on this side of the Atlantic, with the hope that that holds out for the future, particularly for countries like ours who are well placed to benefit from increased demand and increased industrial activity. But we must not forget that a year ago people were saying much the same thing, and in the event the recovery did not materialise in 1982. And though this year the indices point more firmly than they did last towards increased activity in the world economy, and we have the notable added advantage, for some time at least, of lower oil prices, there are still important inhibiting factors of which it would be wise to take notice.
The world economy is still in a precarious state. It is as yet convalescent and no better than that. So in the years to come it is possible that we could be looking back on 1983 as the year which saw the start of sustained recovery in the world economy. On the other hand, if this incipient recovery were to be aborted—if it proves to be nothing more than a will-o'-the wisp—then by 1985 things would look very bleak indeed for the Western world as a whole. So what I had in mind in initiating this debate was a discussion in advance of the Economic Summit at Wiliamsburg on what can be done by Governments who will be there represented to encourage and sustain the momentum of this evident, but as yet incipient, recovery.
In general terms, I suppose that the biggest contribution that Governments can make is to pay attention in their deeds, as well as in their words, to the crucial necessity and the crucial fact of our interdependence, one with another, not only in matters of trade but also in monetary and fiscal affairs. We should all have learnt by now, for instance, that no one country can successfully go its own way without regard to others; no one country in Europe can bring about its own recovery on its own. If we needed any reminding of that, surely we have the example of recent experience in France. No one country can spend its way out of recession; we can only grow out of it together. There can be no such thing as an island of recovery in a sea of recession.
One would have hoped that even the Labour Party would have learnt that by now. But, I must say, judging from the highly inflationary and somewhat ludicrous mock budget they produced the other day, it would appear not. However, I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Lever, on the Front Bench of the Opposition and speaking on their behalf in winding up this debate. Is this a sign, perhaps, that the official Opposition are coming round to his common-sense way of thinking? I should like to think that it was so, but I fear not. I fear that one swallow does not make a summer—even one as bright and as chirpy as the noble Lord.
My Lords, another pre-requisite for sustained world growth must be a high level of private investment, for without that the recovery is doomed to fizzle out. For that, industrialists need confidence that real interest rates will be brought down further and will stay down; in other words, that they will be brought down without raising inflationary expectations. The main contribution which Governments can make to this end

1113
is to show enough discipline not to pre-empt for their own expenditure too high a proportion of available money in circulation. For instance, there is, rightly or wrongly, serious doubt (perhaps fear would be a better word) in the minds of a number of American industrialists as whether the size of the current and forecast United States budget deficit leaves enough room for investment, without interest rates having to be raised again to resist inflationary pressures. And rising interest rates constitute a grave inhibition to investment.
There can be only one effective long-term solution to this problem and that is a sustained rise in world economic activity, enough to create both greater demand for raw materials by the industrialised world and also a greater demand in our markets for the developing world's manufactured goods. But at best that is some way off. Meanwhile, a good measure of success has been achieved in recent months by Governments, central banks and official institutions in a series of major international financial rescue operations for countries in the third world. What once looked like an imminent danger of a seize-up in the world banking system has been averted, at least for the present, helped along by the prospect of lower oil prices and interest charges. But there remains a most serious situation, with precious little margin for error.
There has been, for instance, markedly little enthusiasm—and understandably so—for the extra bank lending in support of IMF adjustment programmes and drawings. If the domestic programmes in the borrowing countries fail to be implemented, do not produce the expected results or, possibly most important, if the world economy proves less buoyant than has been assumed, it will be extremely difficult in the medium term to manage continuing rescue operations. And let us be in no doubt that if the faltering recovery puts these rescues in jeopardy, the financial consequences will in turn rebound sharply on that faltering recovery itself.
So, pending a sustained world recovery—and we have to look at best some years ahead for this to have a major impact on many of the seriously indebted countries—what can be done about this vital problem which could cause, if it were not properly handled, severe damage to our whole banking system? Many banks have seriously over-lent, some to an irresponsible degree, in their determination to maintain their market share of loans at all costs. For that their shareholders will anyhow have to suffer, and the tendency will be for some banks to shy away from yet more lending to the worst-indebted countries. Yet the flow of funds to the third world cannot suddenly be turned off without dire consequences to economic, political and social stability in those countries; and if this threatens, some arrangement will have to be arrived at between these banks and their national authorities.
I come back to what must surely be the first essential in sustaining substantial economic recovery, namely, a significant improvement in co-ordination and co-operation over national economic policies. Since the Versailles summit this has been understood to mean that Governments would follow the same broad objective of containing inflation through sound fiscal and monetary policies with the intention of achieving
1114
sustainable growth without inflation. But in the event monetary and fiscal policies of different countries have tended to remain essentially inward looking. Also, different degrees of success or failure of national policies and unforeseen developments of all kinds have meant that the interest rates and exchange rates, which are in a sense symptoms or by-products of any one country's individual policies, have had major influences on other countries' policies.
What is needed at Williamsburg, surely, is a decision to take international co-operation on to an altogether higher plane. The essence of successful co-ordination has to be for each country to be ready to take into account in its planning the effects of its policies on others and vice versa, and to make its economic contribution for the common good. Take, for example, the question of exchange rates. There can be no doubt that the volatility in exchange rates in recent years has been a malign factor militating against international trade. Violent changes in parities have been far greater, far more frequent, and far more uncoupled and disconnected from real economic factors than was ever anticipated a decade ago, when the disciplines of the Bretton Woods monetary system were jettisoned in favour of a floating rates system.
Surely, whatever may have been the case in the past, it would now be in the interest of the United States, as it certainly would be for the rest of the world, for the United States Government to be prepared to take some measure of joint responsibility, along with others, for the level and structure of exchange rates. I am not suggesting that there should be any question of defending any particular rates; or of commitment to any substantial intervention. But simply the decision that the pattern of world exchange rates was to become a matter of shared concern and the implied acceptance by the major countries jointly that they no longer regarded it as desirable or inevitable that their authorities should be passive in the face of any exchange rate movements—that alone could not fail to make an important contribution to stability.
Another valuable area of international co-ordination would be to try to agree jointly on the continuation or modification of policies which, carried out individually, country by country, would produce an improved result for the world as a whole. To that end, I would make a positive suggestion: that each of the seven Governments attending the Williamsburg summit should circulate papers in advance of that meeting on what they individually wished to see the others do specifically as a contribution to sustaining growth in the world economy. This could give rise, hopefully, to a more fruitful and effective discussion, on facts rather than on communiquśs, than would the reiteration of purely national aspirations and requirements. Even if the extent of agreement on the co-ordination of national policies were to leave much to be desired, as it has done in past summits, we might at least expect a measure of international commitment on what to avoid doing—like agreement to eschew further protectionism, and also to monitor the implementation of any agreements reached country by country.
The seriousness of the world outlook in default of sustained recovery, and the extreme dangers inherent in it of a political and social character as well as an

1115
economic character, demand a global element in national economic planning. The fact that all countries represented around that table at Williamsburg need a consistent annual growth of around 5 per cent. before any real impact is made on our high levels of unemployment—and we know that none of us can achieve that on our own—and that fact alone, must stimulate the policymakers at the summit to think boldly, yet responsibly, in truly international terms.
In terms of unemployment, all the countries at Williamsburg are faced with a pretty uninviting prospect for our peoples in the years immediately ahead even if things turn out as well as can presently be hoped, let alone if things go more awry, as they plainly could. It is no exaggeration to say that the outcome of the Williamsburg meeting will have an important effect either for good or for ill on the future of the free world, both in the North and in the South. On what is concluded there—the extent to which the seven countries succeed or fail to agree to co-ordinate their policies for the common good and thereafter match their words with their deeds—will largely depend whether or not the promise of world economic recovery is fulfilled. Hopefully, this fact will concentrate the minds of our leaders something wonderful, and will lead them, for the first time, to make an economic summit both effective and valuable in world terms. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Northern Ireland: New Economic Initiatives
3.47 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if I were to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement on the Government's New Economic Initiative for Northern Ireland.
"Mr. Speaker, the House will need no reminding of the unique combination of severe economic and social problems in Northern Ireland. In recognition of these exceptional circumstances the Government have decided to introduce several new measures to stimulate industrial growth, and to assist viable industrial employment in Northern Ireland.
"First and foremost the Government have decided to introduce a new grant which will reimburse new and expanding industries up to 80 per cent. of the corporation tax paid on profits generated by approved projects. This grant will form part of the selective financial assistance packages administered by the Industrial Development Board and by the Local Enterprise Development Unit.
"A measure of this sort has been widely urged upon us by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, by the Northern Ireland Assembly (which yesterday endorsed a constructive report on industrial incentives), by the Industrial Development Board and by many others. It will be a major new attraction to potential investors.
"Second, and again in recognition of Northern Ireland's unique economic problems, the existing 75
1116
per cent. derating of industrial premises will be increased to a full 100 per cent. This will both help new investors and bring valuable immediate relief to existing enterprises. Parliament will shortly be asked to approve an order giving effect to this derating from the beginning of the next financial year.
"Third, an energy conservation scheme will be introduced to encourage industry to increase efficiency and competitiveness. Grants at the rate of 30 per cent. will be offered on a selective basis towards the cost of approved energy conservation projects.
"Finally, the Government intend to introduce two further schemes designed to improve competitive strength and efficiency. There will be a Management Incentives Scheme which will provide grant aid in appropriate cases to companies to help them recruit good quality management. And an Advisory Service to Industry will be established to help Northern Ireland companies to improve their production methods and processes.
"These measures reflect the advice the Government have received, particularly from the Industrial Development Board, and I am confident they will assist the board in its vital task of helping to conserve and create employment.
"A vital contribution is also being made by the Local Enterprise Development Unit, whose new plan for the creation and development of small businesses I approved last year.
"Mr. Speaker, these specific Northern Ireland measures will reinforce the Government's more general steps to assist industry and the economy. Reducing interest rates and the successive reductions in National Insurance surcharge will have as valuable an impact in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the country.
"Over the last few years the Government have accorded first priority to programmes designed to assist industry in Northern Ireland. As we have shown in these allocations and further demonstrated with the measures announced today, the Government will play their part in supporting and promoting the economy of the Province. But a heavy responsibility lies on the people themselves, on their industrial, commercial and labour leaders, and on their public representatives, to bring home just how exaggerated and distorted is the impression which so many outsiders have of the Province; we look to them to demonstrate to the industrialists of the world that Northern Ireland is worthy of their confidence and their investment."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement, and generally we welcome consideration that is given to any new initiatives which can help to reconstruct industry in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will recall that during our recent appropriation debate concern was expressed by many noble Lords at the manufacturing position in Northern Ireland: at the fact that there are more unemployed than at work in the manufacturing industries and at the fact that in certain parts of Northern Ireland male unemployment

1117
is approaching 50 per cent. Therefore, we welcome consideration that is given to new initiatives.
As to deciding whether these are the right ones, one would need to consider them more carefully than simply having a Statement read out this afternoon. At the moment, the proposals for a Management Incentives Scheme and the Advisory Service to Industry are vague. They may be very beneficial, but until we know further details, we do not know exactly how they will work out. I am pleased to note that the proposal for corporation tax has the emphasis on new and expanding industries. But one would need to look very carefully at whether the proposals for grant for corporation tax and the derating will work out.
During our appropriation debate I referred to the programme which had been produced by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, published only in January this year, which urged—and I believe that many other noble Lords take this view—that it is essential that in Northern Ireland we not only take steps to rebuild industry, but also tackle the social deprivation which exists in many parts. They must go together. The Northern Ireland committee of the Irish trade unions urged that there should be a public sector investment programme which would not only assist to reduce unemployment but at the same time would assist in tackling some of the problems of social deprivation. They believed that their proposals would provide an extra 40,000 jobs and at the same time would reduce the very heavy burden which is falling upon the financiers owing to the social service benefits that are required. Therefore, while generally welcoming the initiative, we should need to look more carefully at the actual proposals to see whether they are the right ones to meet the situation.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement which was made by the Secretary of State in the other place. We welcome the measures as a token of the Government's concern for, as was said, the severe economic and social problems in Northern Ireland, subject, of course, to further review and consideration. In Britain we are continually being pressed by those in Ulster and elsewhere to do more to help overcome the great distress at present being experienced in Ulster. Now, on the advice and representation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Industrial Development Board and others, we are doing just that.
I hope that it will be broadcast to the world that we are glad to help, but we wholeheartedly endorse what the Secretary of State said in his closing paragraph. He said:
"… the Government will play their part in supporting and promoting the economy of the Province. But a heavy responsibility lies on the people themselves",
to show that the Province is worthy of support and trade. It is a vicious circle that must be broken—cut down the terrorism and trade will improve and, in turn, terrorism will be less tempting.
There are just two questions which I should like to ask the noble Earl. First, can he give an estimate of the cost of increasing the existing 75 per cent. derating of
1118
industrial premises to 100 per cent? Secondly, how do these concessions compare with incentives offered South of the Border?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome which they have given to this Statement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that it is very important that everyone in Northern Ireland should do his best to show and to encourage other would-be investors that Northern Ireland is, in fact, a good place in which to invest. As the Statement says, the Government are prepared to play their part in doing that, but substantially much of this depends upon the conduct of everyone in Northern Ireland.
I entirely understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to study the measures more carefully. The noble Lord wondered how the Management Incentives Scheme would work. The object is to make a move to Northern Ireland more attractive for the manager of a foreign company which the Industrial Development Board is trying to encourage to invest in Northern Ireland, and also to encourage existing Northern Ireland companies to recruit the best possible management for a given job, wherever the recruited manager might at present live.
The noble Lord also wondered how the advisory service would work. In brief, it would serve all manufacturing industries, providing 15 man-days of consultancy free to companies which employ more than 50 people, and five man-days to firms with fewer employees. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked what would be the cost of derating from the 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. The anticipated cost is £7 million. He asked how these measures compare with those measures South of the Border. I can only answer him by saying that it is very difficult to give strict comparisons both North of the Border and South of the Border, because so many different factors operate. However, the grant for corporation tax relief is a very substantial one. In fact, 80 per cent. of the tax payable by corporation tax will be returned by way of a grant to those firms which have gone through certain approved processes and which have actually employed more people and increased their output. That grant will be available for 20 years. I think that that is a very considerable move to attract people to Northern Ireland.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we should like to welcome this Statement from the Government. Direct intervention of this kind is absolutely warranted by the very difficult state of conditions in Northern Ireland; and, in my opinion, we could do with a good deal more of it elsewhere, but that is another point. I am particularly pleased that the first thing which is suggested—the new grant of up to 80 per cent. of corporation tax payable—has been specifically supported in advance by the Assembly, because this makes the Assembly feel that it is at any rate being listened to by the Government, which is important. We welcome the intervention whole-heartedly. The noble Earl gave my noble friend from the Liberal Benches an estimate for one of the items. Will there be an estimate for the cost of the whole package, because I think we should like to see it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his welcome too. He has, needless to say, asked me a question to which I cannot give him an answer which he would find wholly satisfactory, because it is difficult to say exactly what the amount of the corporation tax relief grant will be. It depends on the number of firms who take it up, the amount of extra employment, and the amount of extra productivity. The derating I referred to as being worth £7 million; the energy conservation measures should be worth about £2 million; and with regard to the advisory service and the manufacturing services it is really too difficult at the moment to be able to say exactly what they will cost. I am afraid that I cannot, for the reasons I have given, give the noble Lord a precise reply.

World Economy and Currency Stability
Debate resumed.
3.1 p.m.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, many of us are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for having brought forward this Motion. I hope he will forgive me if I make no attempt to follow his arguments in detail. Owing to the shortness of time I should like to confine my remarks to only one aspect of his Motion: namely, the international currency situation. Since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, two things have happened. Industrial growth among the Western countries has greatly slowed down or even turned into a decline, and there has been a greatly accelerated inflation, worldwide in scope and accompanied by a very rapid growth in non-resident bank deposits, a great deal of which were held by non-resident subsidiaries of the major banks in the world in the so-called Euro-currency markets.
There were large exchange rate fluctuations, much of it of a disequilibrating character—as, for example, the large rise in the pound relative to all other currencies up to the end of 1981 which meant that British labour costs, in terms of a common currency such as the dollar, rose by 40 to 50 per cent. in relation to our competitors'. The exchange rate movements in turn were largely governed by expectations which were unstable. They were governed by short-term capital movements rather than the requirements of the current account.
Everyone agrees that the present situation is chaotic, and the frequent changes in exchange rate relativities, whether they come about spontaneously or as a result of an agreement such as the EMS agreement last weekend, are not conducive to a recovery of the world economy. In fact, it can be shown that, in order to have an expansion of demand which is truly international in scope, fixed exchanges are needed and not floating rates.
The Bretton Woods agreement was extraordinarily successful in terms of steady growth and full employment in all the major industrial countries. In retrospect, I think that the success of that agreement was mainly due to the fact that from the early 1950s onwards there was a continued outflow of dollars mainly directed to third world countries (both through
1120
loans and through unilateral transfers) which in turn meant that the other industrial countries experienced a steady increase in the demand for their exports, and had on the whole favourable balances of payments, and accumulated reserves.
The system broke down when the currency reserves of the industrialised countries were swamped with dollars and there was a growing disinclination to accept any more. This led to President Nixon's dramatic step on 15th August 1971 of suspending the gold convertibility of the dollar, which had fatal consequences which were quite unexpected—even though the step itself was little more than a formality, since the dollar was only convertible in special circumstances after March 1968.
The fatal consequences were in terms of unleashing inflationary expectations throughout the world, and the consequent large fluctuations and greatly enlarged volatility of commodity prices. Now more or less everyone is agreed that the present situation is extremely unsatisfactory. I do not think I can find anyone who would deny that, or that it must be changed. There are those who wish for a simple return to the Bretton Woods system, and there are those who want a return to the pre-war gold standard; and finally there are those who feel that neither of these courses would bring a real remedy and that what is required is a new international reserve currency based on a commodity standard.
There was a time not so long ago when monetary experts appeared to be agreed that a mere limitation in the supply of inconvertible paper money would secure the same stability of prices as a currency which is directly convertible into one or more commodities at fixed rates. I think that this belief has by now been exploded, partly because it has been shown that no one country can control its own money supply in the face of inflationary trends and also because still less is it possible to limit the growth of the world money supply of which the Euro-currencies, which are not subject to any controlling authority, form an ever growing part.
My own solution would be very much the same as that of Lord Keynes, who worked out in the course of the war two plans which he himself regarded as closely related, and he considered the realisation of each to be a precondition to the success of the other. The first plan was for an international clearing union which, in greatly emasculated form, came into existence in the shape of the International Monetary Fund. The second was entirely stillborn, and the true extent of Keynes' involvement in the second plan has only become known recently with the release of secret documents under the 30-year rule and the publication of Keynes' Collected Writings.
The second organisation which Keynes advocated he called International Commodity Control. It argued in favour of the establishment of buffer stocks for each of the major commodities moving in international trade and financed by the issue of "bancor"—which was the name he gave to the new international currency, and which I suppose was conceived as something similar to what we now call SDRs. He envisaged "bancor" as an international reserve currency to be created by this new clearing union.

1121
Keynes thought that the establishment of such buffer stocks would have enormous advantages for stabilising prices generally, since stable food and raw material prices are a precondition for the stability of the prices of all other goods and services. He also thought that in this way the growth in production of industrial materials and foodstuffs would be greatly stepped up (because with stable prices the producers' risks would be so much smaller) which in turn would make it possible to accelerate very considerably the industrialisation of the underdeveloped parts of the world.
Keynes' proposal met with a great deal of opposition from some unexpected quarters, chiefly the Bank of England, which felt at the time that Keynes' proposals were,
"far too laissez faire inasmuch as they still allow a place for private trading",
whereas the Bank of England were then convinced (no doubt it was a temporary aberration under the stress of the war) that:
"Nothing but output restrictions, enforced by export and import quotas, could solve the problem of commodity surpluses".
They failed to take into account the fact that because, on a worldwide scale, idle manpower exists in super-abundance—whereas capital accumulation is a consequence of the growth of production as much as a cause of it—it is the rate of growth in the availabilities of primary products which, over longer periods, governs the rate of economic growth of world economy.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. He has spoken about it a number of times in your Lordships' House and we on the Alliance Benches agree with almost everything he said today. We wish him well and we hope that he will continue to say it, although I am afraid that so far he has not received much change from his noble friends, or at any rate from his Front Bench.
In the debate a fortnight ago my noble Leader, Lord Diamond, summed up the criticism of the internal policy of he Government when he said they were turning their back on the whole experience—he meant particularly experience of demand management—of the post-war period. Time did not allow him to go into the international situation, but I shall comment on what I believe strongly in that context, which is that exactly the same can be said about the international economic policy of Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is fond of telling us that world recessions are inevitable—that we always have booms and slumps—and that the present one cannot be attributed to Government policy. When, many years ago, he and I were colleagues on the Budget Committee, he displayed the most extraordinary memory; nobody could ask him anything to which he did not know the answer. Listening to him in your Lordships' House now, I feel that that ability is still there, though he appears to have a mental blockage on this subject because he seems entirely to have forgotten that since the last recession there have been no world recessions of any substance.
1122
Taking the trough of the great depression and the trough of the present one—which was in, say, 1982—that was a span of 50 years. Taking off, say, 10 years for the war, there were 40 years with no world recessions worth mentioning. That happened not just by accident. The genesis of it was that at the end of the world war the statesmen had all lived through the great recession and were determined that the world should not again be subjected to the misery, waste and suffering that that had entailed. They all found it hard to defend the spectacle of want and misery on the one hand, and labour and capital rotting away on the other, with no way of bringing them together.
After the war they adopted the objectives of stable exchanges, fewer barriers to trade and the seeking by all Governments of high and stable levels of employment. To that end they set up the institutions which were to co-ordinate and supervise the work of the different Governments; for example, the IMF for exchanges and the GATT for trade. Originally the Economic and Social Council was supposed to supervise the employment pledges, but it became clear that such matters could not be discussed with the Russians. By a great stroke of luck, the Marshall Plan led to the OEEC, which in turn led to the OECD, and that for many years provided the forum in which countries could discuss their general economic situations, including the problems of employment and unemployment, and they could work towards co-ordinated action.
That went on until a few years ago. The last effort of that kind was in 1977 or 1978 when there were discussions which led to the main Governments of the industrialised countries agreeing on a co-ordinated programme of expansion. Since then, it has all gone by the board. The reason was that inflation had reached heights which were frightening and it was felt that something had to be done. In 1979, when the present Government came to power, I said that although for many years I had advocated an incomes policy, it had not been successful and I thought the Government should be given a chance to try the monetarist policy which they have since adopted.
Since then we have seen a tremendous waste of resources—again, on the scale of the 1932 recession—with serious damage being done to the organisations which did so well and produced that long period of world prosperity between the end of the war and a few years ago. The price that has had to be paid for counter-inflation by strictly monetary methods, with the use of unemployment as the instrument of policy, has been very great indeed, and I have come to the view—it is the view of the Alliance—that we should be able to do better.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, was optimistic—at least, he made a show of optimism—about the prospects for the next summit meeting at Williamsburg. I do not know if he has studied the Chancellor's Budget speech; his right honourable and learned friend was, I thought, forthright about Government economic policy and took pride in the fact that at the Versailles summit last year it was reaffirmed that the control of inflation had to be the top priority. As I understood it, he was looking forward to the same again—to reaffirming that proposition at Williamsburg—and he said that

1123
nothing could be more dangerous than for countries having had some success in their struggle, to relax in order to ease the position of others less successful; in other words, everybody must take their medicine.
That overlooked the fact that concerted concentration on deflationary measures inevitably produce a vicious downward spiral, a situation in which nobody can win: you produce unemployment, pressure on costs attempts to do what was so much complained of in the 1930s, you export your unemployment to somebody else, they are driven to do the same back and you get what we see now, competitive devaluation and the gradual erosion of the free trade system which made such progress, and we now see all sorts of gnawing away at free trade. Nowadays it is almost obscene to talk about "full" employment. The objective of maintaining concerted high levels of employment has gone completely.
Though we in the Alliance recognise that the control of inflation is very important, we feel strongly that other matters, too, ought to be taken into account. Here, I believe that the plea which the noble Lord, Lord Soames, made—that we should try to revivify and get moving the international institutions—holds the key to what is done. In these circumstances, we cannot get very far by ourselves. I believe that we could stand a certain amount of reflation, and I fully agree with the Alliance programme on that; but if everybody else is pulling you down, you cannot get very far yourself.
Time will not permit me to expand on that point, but I consider that the IMF should be given a lead by the major countries to see whether there cannot be a little more stability in exchanges. The main condition that has changed since Bretton Woods is that rates of inflation are different in different countries. That means that the importance which was attached to rigid exchange rates—there was a terrific uproar if it was necessary to change; I remember in 1949 that we set the world by the ears with our first devaluation—should become less in the system. The major countries should give a firm commitment to stick to the GATT and not to go in for the protection that is now taking place. There should be a concerted attempt to get the world turned round, to get it at least to move in the right direction.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, when he stresses that a more stable régime of currencies could be a great help in promoting better worldwide economic conditions. I have little to add to what I said in the debate on this subject a few months ago. I then stressed that today's difficulties in this field are much greater than were those in the 1950s, and earlier. This is largely due to the enormous increase in the amount of volatile funds moving around the world looking for better interest rates and prospects of exchange profits.
In the earlier period there were of course times of crisis when situations of evident over-valuation, or under-valuation, had to be dealt with. But there was not the continuous day-to-day up and down movement which nowadays adds so much to the difficulties of international business. Generally
1124
speaking, in those earlier days the major central banks had adequate funds to keep a reasonable measure of day-to-day stability; and there were agreements such as the Tripartite Agreement in the 1930s, culminating of course in Bretton Woods, with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Obviously conditions have changed; in particular, as I have said, with the dramatic increase of volatile funds and developments such as the Euro-dollar market. Clearly, to return to Bretton Woods as such is not feasible. But I feel that some lessons could be learnt from Bretton Woods, and that there is an urgent need of some international structure, perhaps based on the International Monetary Fund, and worked up together by the Governments and central banks responsible for the major currencies of the world. To provide more stability in exchange rates, in particular on day-to-day movements, is surely a matter which should be given very high priority indeed in discussions on worldwide economic and financial policy.
4.24 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, once again my noble friend Lord Soames has called our attention to the world economy and I am looking forward to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lever of Manchester—always pungent and always interesting. I want to say only a word or two about the debts which Latin America owes to the international banks. Those who know well that fascinating part of the world always warn us not to lump together the 20-odd countries in Latin America. They differ widely. They differ in their social mix, in their natural resources and in their forms of Government. However, extraordinary to say, during the last few years international finance has largely submerged those differences and made possible a single pattern of financial crisis.
Whether these economies produce oil, as do Mexico and Venezuela, or whether like Brazil they do not, their Governments, be they dictatorships or democracies, have overspent their revenues and are hugely in debt at home and abroad. Overspending is a disease as catching as the common cold. It has been encouraged by the facility with which developing countries could borrow. The banks, flush with OPEC money, were eager to lend. Nevertheless, looking around Latin America, from where I have just returned, one sees that the main responsibility for the crisis rests with the borrowing Governments and their agencies—which are the equivalent of our quangos—which have also borrowed very heavily abroad, often without telling their central banks what they were doing.
As other noble Lords have said, no doubt the world monetary and banking system could be much improved, and I should like to see a more stable system of currencies. But the monetary system is not at the root of the third world's troubles. The responsibility rests squarely with the Governments and their agencies who have so little to show for all that they have borrowed—except, of course, the accumulation of armaments. To please the military in those countries vast sums have been borrowed and are still being sought to buy arms. Those who sell these arms—in Latin America one notices France and Israel

1125
in the forefront of this business—make enormous profits and give enormous commissions. All the time the great bulk of the population, increasing rapidly in numbers, remains in poverty and is edged towards that kind of envy or even despair which is fertile soil for Communism. This situation in Latin America is one which the Western world cannot afford to neglect.
Now that most Latin American countries are trying to reschedule their debts—and I hope that they will all succeed—would it not be in their own interests for the creditors to make a condition that the further purchases of arms should be postponed and replaced by goods which would enable the respective economies to become more productive?
In Mexico and Venezuela, for example, the export of goods other than oil has been allowed to fall to a ludicrously low proportion of the total required to pay for their imports. In our own country we have seen what it means to a town or district dependent on a single product—it might be coal, it might be steel—if the demand for that product disappears: unemployment then flattens the whole community. Such disasters are threatening the oil producing countries which have relied so blindly on OPEC to maintain the price of oil far above the cost of production per barrel. If you take a country like Brazil—where coffee more or less replaces oil—there you see that the same overspent and over-borrowed situation has been allowed to develop.
It would be a mistake if Western leaders at Williamsburg were content to cover up the follies of these Governments. We are all partly responsible, borrowers and lenders alike. But the lesson primarily has to be learned by the Governments which have overspent and over-borrowed. Their creditors should give them examples of sound finance at home and, if they did, they might be able then to persuade the Latin Americans to devote any new money to the production of non-oil goods for home consumption and export.
I shall be told that that is the role of the IMF; and indeed it is. But, when you look at the recession in a sub-continent like Latin America, you see that a lead is required above and beyond the bankers and the money men. Your Lordships may think that such a reversal of policies is impossible in the political circumstances of Latin America. My recent visit makes me cautiously optimistic. The press and the media are remarkably free, frank, brave and well-informed on the root of the trouble; that is, the overspending of their Governments. In Venezuela, for example, the leading businessmen, academics and commentators are unanimous in giving the right advice. They are looking for help from outside to persuade their Government to balance the budget. Perhaps I might say that in many Latin American countries the most talented and best educated people do not go into politics. There are many first-class men and women who are as much against military dictatorships as they are against Communism. They need somehow to be persuaded to take a hand in governing their country.
Therefore, I am against covering up the root cause of the crisis. I am against rescheduling these debts in the back parlours of banks with the minimum possible
1126
publicity. We should come out into the open and admit the mistakes, which are ours as well as theirs, propose sound policies and go forward together to a world recovery. President Reagan, Chancellor Kohl and our Prime Minister could take the lead at Williamsburg and set the recovery in motion. Let them make what improvements they can in the monetary system. It is not the root of the trouble. Let the main emphasis be put where it belongs on the better management of revenues and expenditures by Governments everywhere in the world.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, deserves our threefold congratulations; first, for choosing a subject which has become remarkably topical in the last few days in view of the events in Brussels; secondly, for the power and lucidity of his speech; but thirdly, I think, for providing the occasion for what we can confidently expect to be an equally valuable speech by my noble friend Lord Lever. When the noble Lord, Lord Soames, wondered whether the Labour Party is likely to adopt the common sense of my noble friend, I wonder equally whether the Government are likely to adopt the common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. We hope so; and no doubt we shall see later in the debate.
This debate, as a whole, is concentrating our minds on some of the most important issues of the day. They are the issues which have been analysed and highlighted over the past three years by the Brandt Commission and, indeed, by the persistent efforts of the distinguished individual members of the Brandt Commission, not least in this country by the efforts of Mr. Edward Heath. They have been urging over those three years exactly what the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, calls for; that is to say, a more active and vigorous world economy. The Brandt Commissioners have described, with clarity and vigour, the main elements of the current worldwide depression; mass unemployment and severe contraction both of production and of international trade, all of which is leading to the threat of the collapse of international financial institutions and also to serious political tensions in all parts of the world, with the consequential ruinous arms race and its threat to peace.
In facing these problems, the Brandt Commission has stressed one aspect which seems to me both central and crucial. It is an aspect which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, but I think that it perhaps deserves some emphasis. I have in mind mutuality of interests and the commonality of problems shared by the developed and the developing world. It is no longer possible, as, perhaps, it was as short a period ago as 10 years, to speak of the problems of the third world as something distinct and separate from those of the affluent nations. The message of Brandt, and, indeed, the title of its second report, is that the crisis is a common crisis. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, that because we are all in this together the solution of the crisis depends upon co-ordinated action on a truly international scale.
The essence of the solution to the crisis is that we must change direction. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was urging the governments of the South

1127
American continent to change direction. I hope that he would agree with me that governments on other continents also need to change direction. What we have had, and what to a large extent has caused our problems, has been an excessive reliance on monetarism, excessively high interest rates, increasing protectionism and competitive devaluations of exchange rates. All these things not ony exacerbate the economic situation of developed nations but, at the same time, create even worse troubles for the third world; because world depression leads to low demand and low prices for the commodities which third-world countries seek to sell. They therefore have to borrow.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that sometimes the money that they borrow is ill-spent; but, basically, they are in a position of having to borrow, and then high interest rates increase the repayment burden of the money which they have been forced to borrow. Then, reductions in aid (which we have unfortunately seen) retard the economic growth of the developing countries. Not only does this perpetuate the poverty in the third world; it has a backlash effect on rich countries. Defaults on loan repayments from the third world may lead to a knock-on effect, to the collapse of our own banks; and the loss of markets in underdeveloped countries can well cause our own factories to close.
In my view, the financial proposals of the second Brandt Commission Report are the only way in which the world can check this process of mutual economic destruction. Those proposals are set out in the document—Common Crisis—on pages 13, 14 and 15, and I shall not itemise them. But, above all, what they propose is a considerable increase in the lending capacity of the IMF and the World Bank through its International Development Association. Of course, the commission makes many other proposals in the fields of trade, food and energy, but it is the financial proposals which are particularly vital, it seems to me, and which are relevant to today's debate.
Let me conclude with a warning about the grave danger of self-deception and self-justification by governments of the policies they are pursuing. Eighteen months ago, at Cancun, we had a conference which had much publicity, many set-piece speeches, but unfortunately very few results. We now face the danger that the Government will pretend to be doing better in these matters than is justified by the record. They have gone on record as welcoming the Brandt Commission report. Indeed, I noticed that Mr. Rifkind of the Foreign Office, in another place, was listing those recommendations of the Brandt report, which the Government have already accepted. No doubt it was an admirable list.
But when I read those words my mind went back to a quotation, which had struck me forcefully, on page 3 of Willy Brandt's introduction to his second report. He was referring to the words of Harry Dexter White, whom he described as the American counterpart of Lord Keynes, at Bretton Woods. These were Harry Dexter White's words which Willy Brandt quoted:
"Where modern diplomacy calls for swift and bold action, we engage in long drawn-out cautious negotiation; where we should talk in terms of billions of dollars, we think in terms of millions; …
1128
where we should be dealing with all -embracing economic, political and social probems, we discuss minor trade objectives, or small national advantages;".
Maybe that is what we were doing at Brussels at the week-end. Those words of Harry Dexter White of some 40 years ago are, I suggest, as apt today as they were on that occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, referred several times to the importance of the forthcoming Williamsburg economic conference which is due in a few months. It will not be a new Bretton Woods—I wish it were capable of being that. But even at Williamsburg it would be heartening to think that some world statesman would emerge able to speak and to act as big as the world's critical situation demands. I hope that that will emerge. My hopes are not very strong, but I do commend once more the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for having brought before your Lordships a real opportunity for us at least to face the reality of the world situation.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to join with those who have paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for so eloquently introducing this most important Motion. As has just been said, he drew particular attention, echoed by other noble Lords who have spoken, to the importance of the forthcoming Williamsburg conference. There seems to be no doubt about that sentiment in the House.
However, I must say that I was disturbed to read in this morning's press—I am quoting from the Financial Times—that in the communiqué issued by the European Council Meeting in Brussels the other day:
"among the decisions of the council was an instruction to the Commission to prepare positions for the Williamsburg economic conference which will permit the Community to make a substantial contribution to efforts to ensure the recovery of the international economy".
That is fine, but this conference is to take place in Williamsburg in two months' time. If it is only now that the member countries of the European Community have instructed the Commission to prepare positions, when are the member countries themselves to consider those positions? I also note in the communiqué that the next time the European Council will be meeting will be in the month of June—that is, after the Williamsburg conference. I think that we are entitled to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, when he speaks later in this debate, how seriously the preparations for this conference are being conducted and what steps will be taken, not only in individual Community countries but in the Community countries together, to formulate some positive proposals which can be brought forward to make this conference, to which everyone attaches such importance, a success.
It is quite clear that this conference, the summit at Williamsburg, should be concerning itself with two basic issues; the first being how we can stimulate and sustain as widespread a degree of growth throughout the world as possible, without running into all the difficulties of inflation from which we have just emerged. The second is how instruments and conditions within which such growth can most effectively develop can be created.

1129
On the first point, it seems to me—again I am echoing the words of other noble Lords—have mentioned—that the best contribution the developed countries can make to the resumption of growth is to ensure that there is a degree of practical sustained growth in their own countries, because by so doing not only will they stimulate the economic activity in their own countries but their participation in world trade will be substantially increased. It is the diminution in the level of world trade, particularly as it bears on the commodities produced by the third world, which has created part of the crisis through which we are going internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, spoke about interdependence between countries, and that is perfectly true. But I believe there is another aspect of interdependence when one considers the resumption of growth: that is, interdependence between public and private investment. I am very concerned about the way in which public investment has diminished in this country below the levels set for it in Government objectives. There is a very close interdependence between public and private investment. Public investment sparks off an enormous amount of private investment in the construction and engineering sectors. The time to be getting our infrastructure right is now, when the resources are available, and not waiting for the time when, in further moves towards growth, those resources are required and inevitably used for other purposes.
I think that as part of our contribution to Williamsburg we should be preparing the ways in which we can tell the other countries how we are trying to stimulate effectively further growth in our own country. When it comes to the conditions under which this growth can proceed, then it is quite clear that there are three basic issues. There is the risk of a return to protectionism; there is the instability of the currencies and there is the problem of indebtedness. One hopes that at Williamsburg these three problems will be very seriously considered.
Many noble Lords have referred to the achievements that arose from the institutions and agreements which were set up in the aftermath of the Second World War. Those institutions and that foresight which led to those agreements meant that we all benefited from something like two decades of sustained and continued growth. And even though conditions today may be different, at least it should be fair to ask whether we should try to learn a little more from what was achieved then, rather than simply say that what was done in those days is no longer valid. Indeed, certain suggestions were made as to ways in which the experience of that halcyon period could be applied to trying to find ways in which the far more violent fluctuations of currency could be diminished; ways in which we could restore the attitude towards trade and diminish the need for protectionism. Of course, protectionism itself can be bred from weaknesses in the economy, so if we correct those weaknesses the pressure towards protectionism diminishes.
Then we have the problem of indebtedness, and there are divided views on this subject. There is the concern, on the one hand, that if the assistance
1130
provided for these countries is too easy, they will never have the incentive to get their own economies in order. On the other hand,there is the view that they face a very special crisis and need to be helped over it. I am quite sure that the answer lies between those two views. So here is a very firm and definite agenda for the Williamsburg conference. I hope very much that there will be serious preparation for it between the participants and those various countries whom they represent.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, at the time of the last debate, which was on 15th December, the international banking crisis was at its height. Since then there has been the rescheduling of the debts of Mexico and Brazil; Poland's position has been temporarily relieved; there are hopeful signs of increased IMF quotas and the BIS has relieved the pressure by bridging loans. The proposed clearing house for information on the viability of borrowers in Washington has now been established, and even the new Governor of the Bank of England has said, with more optimism than appears justified, that
"we have overcome the crisis—if there ever was one".
I do not believe that the crisis has simply vanished, although I applaud all the steps that have been taken by the international banking community to deal with these matters.
There remain three inter-related problems: first, the third world debts, which are still standing at 600 billion dollars; secondly, the continued contraction of world trade and, thirdly, the instability which arises from the fluctuation of exchange rates. These three problems belong together and I am not certain that, at the moment, we have either developed the will or created the strength in our international institutions to solve them. As each individual nation fights for its own advantage, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, whether in steel or in agriculture, we neglect the most important fact in the world today: that we are all bound together in an international trading network and we are dependent on one another.
First, let me say a word about the LDCs' debt of 600 billion dollars. They have been caught in an impossible squeeze with the falling prices of primary products. Last year they fell on average by 14 per cent., whereas their borrowings have been related to the London inter-bank rate and their debt service ratio has gone up from 15 per cent. in 1977 to 30 per cent. last year. While the fall in the price of oil will help a little, except in the case of Nigeria, and a moderate growth in the economies of the Western world will generate some demand for raw materials, I believe that the problem of the LDC debts is a crucial one. While the present situation exists, the commercial banks will be reluctant to take on their books any further borrowings, particularly medium-term or long-term borrowings on which the LDCs depend for reconstruction. Seventy per cent. of the total debts of 600 billion dollars, to which I have referred, are on the books of the commercial banks.
I have been interested to read recently a number of papers which have been considered in the financial community, with regard to relieving the LDCs of some of that debt—at least temporarily. My colleague at

1131
Morgan Grenfell, Mr. Bill Mackworth-Young, has suggested that the burden of problem bank assets should be moved from the commercial banking system to the international capital markets. This will be done by a new agency supported by the IMF. Or the central banks should purchase these loans at face value and issue, in exchange, non-interest bearing bonds. These could be discounted at central banks, if serious liquidity problems arose. In addition, these central bank-backed bonds could be converted into a second type of paper, which would carry a low interest coupon and would be tradeable on the secondary markets.
Another less complicated scheme has been proposed by the general manager of Barclays Bank International, which would be for the central banks to purchase part of these loans at discount, as a temporary relief measure. In turn, the banks must agree to lend the equivalent amount of new money—perhaps, as export credits—but, at least, to lend it on to third world countries. This would set in motion again the lending process, which has dried up. If the discounted loan was not honoured ultimately, it would revert to the lending bank so that the lending bank would not be totally relieved of its responsibility.
Another scheme that is suggested, and which has some attractions, is that there might be an insurance premium paid by the banks to some central authority to cover these debts. This would have the attraction for the commercial banks that they would be able to charge the insurance premium against current costs and tax liability, whereas, so far, the Inland Revenue has not yet agreed to accept the writing-down of debts as a permissible item. Some of these schemes ought to be examined very seriously.
I am not trying in any way to justify some of the lending which took place in the 'seventies, when LDCs were borowing at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum whereas their economic growth was at the rate of 4½ or 5 per cent. per annum. They were in an impossible position. It was irresponsible borrowing. Some of these countries—for example, Mexico—borrowed in order to develop their petroleum resources, when equity participation by some outside investors might have given a long-term stability of capital which is necessary to develop long-term projects. All I am suggesting is that these schemes and these devices might provide some immediate help for the LDCs, and make a positive contribution to the second problem, which is the revival of world trade.
In this connection, I hope that many noble Lords read the 10-page survey of the situation, written by Helmut Schmidt in the Economist of 26th February. What a pity there is no House of Lords in Germany, so that Helmut Schmidt could continue to play an active role in European affairs. I hope that there will be a forum for that man. And what a pity that the British Labour Party, which flirts with protectionism, import controls, further devaluation and withdrawal from Europe—a commitment that was emphasised on the radio this morning by its official spokesman—does not listen to the wisdom of that great social democrat, Helmut Schmidt. He calls for a stable exchange rate. He says that:
"The quality of an international monetary system can be measured by the criteria of reliable calculable exchange rates, free
1132
capital flows, stable prices and steady growth in world trade and production. Judged by these criteria, the general unregulated floating since March 1973 has not done well.".
Helmut Schmidt goes on to describe protectionism as "an escape into suicide". He sees the attractions of nations developing protectionist policies. Regions like to protect themselves; it is popular to stick up for yourself, and so on. But it bears no relation to the reality of the world in which we live. Our health and welfare are dependent upon prosperity.
While we are perhaps breathing just a little easier, I believe we should heed the warnings of Helmut Schmidt. I am not sure whether we need new, elaborate international institutions. The experience of the past few months has shown that Governments, central banks and commercial banks can work together. We must keep up the momentum. We must be alert to immediate dangers and be ready with machinery for quick response in the event of any further deterioration of the situation. This involves strengthening the will and the power of existing international organisations like the International Monetary Fund and the International Development Authority.
The suggestion of the Group of Thirty that the IMF should supplement its resources by tapping private markets should certainly be pursued. This might be a device whereby the IMF could increase its power. Let me suggest an agenda for Williamsburg. First, moderating the wide variation between expansion and contraction in the offshore markets for currencies, loans and securities; second, minimising disruptive fluctuations in international capital movements among leading countries; and thirdly, focusing these efforts on limiting erratic or sustained distortions in exchange rates among key currencies, while using co-ordinated central bank intervention in the foreign exchange markets to check disorderly conditions.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I rise to speak for only one reason. I was talking last week to a group of noble Lords who were kind enough to say that my worst enemy could never accuse me of being a bore. Then, after a moment's pause, one of them said, "Except on one subject". To my dismay they then agreed unanimously that on the subject of monetary policy I was a crashing bore. I had only one defender, my noble friend Lord Shinwell. All the rest said, "No, it is no good. Whenever you get up to speak about monetary policy or gold, we all go back to sleep". I will tell your Lordships why. Nobody knows it better than the noble Lord, Lord Lever of Manchester. I have been talking in Parliament continously on this subject for 60 years. He, poor devil!, has heard a great many of those speeches in both Houses of Parliament—
Lord Lever of Manchester: I would not have missed them.
Lord Boothby:—and he agreed with many of them. Unfortunately, the Treasury and the Bank of England did not agree with any of them. But the fact remains that over all those years I was steadily right, and the Treasury and the Bank of England were as steadily

1133
wrong. I have now decided that if I go on talking here about the subject I shall only repeat myself. Therefore I had better shut up. However, the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has given me the opportunity, which I relish, of boring your Lordships on it for the last time. I am looking forward to it very much. I can promise your Lordships only one thing: that it will be a brief period of boredom, with only a few yawns, because there are only three topics I want to touch on; and they will not take more than a few minutes.
The first point to which I must draw your Lordships' attention is the Genoa Conference of 1922. It deserves the closest study, There had been nothing comparable to it since the Congress of Vienna. As Count Kessler wrote at the time, it was an oecumenical council, comparable to those which the mediaeval church used to summon for the salvation of Christendom; and, as in the Middle Ages, a terror overhung the gathering that failure might portend catastrophe to European civilisation. My Lords, it did.
The Genoa Conference was dominated by two most remarkable men—Mr. Lloyd George and Rathenau, the German Foreign Minister. Rathenau has some claim to be regarded as the greatest industrialist-financier that this century has produced. We know something about Lloyd George. He was a genius, the only real political genius of his time. He was then at the zenith of his powers. He talked to me as a boy and told me of his ambitions. They included revision of the Treaty of Versailles and the abolition of reparations and the inter-allied debts. But Lloyd George was too much for the very pedestrian British politicians who then represented the very pedestrian British people of that time. They took the view—and said—that Lloyd George was a dynamic force, and therefore dangerous; so they threw him out. The Germans went one better. They assassinated Rathenau. All this happened within weeks of the Genoa Conference, which thereupon crashed, together with all its resolutions.
Among those resolutions was the currency resolution drafted by Sir Basil Blackett and Sir Ralph Hawtrey, both now dead. Thanks to Sir Ralph Hawtrey, I have in my possession the original draft of the currency resolutions. It was described by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, who was at the conference, as "a financial Code, worthy to rank with the legal Code of Justinian". Briefly, the Genoa currency resolutions recommended a gold exchange standard, with the price of gold fixed from time to time, with a view to increasing production and trade all over the world; and with exchange rates devised to fluctuate as little as possible, but not altogether inflexible. There is a mass of other fascinating material in the Genoa Resolution, a copy of which I suppose must reside in some musty corner of the Treasury. When I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they put Sir Ralph Hawtrey in a room at the top of the Treasury and locked the door. They treated him almost as though he were a lunatic. So all that ended and foundered. A great chance of permanent world recovery was missed, and missed for ever.
In what I must say was an unusually foolish reply to a question of mine last week, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said how silly it was to go back 40 years to
1134
see what happened then when one was framing policies for today. How wrong the noble Lord was. I remember Winston Churchill, whose experience was somewhat greater than that of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, saying to me that the purpose of examining the past, and even recriminating about it, is to ensure better action in the present. Churchill went on to say that the first thing he did as Chancellor of the Exchequer was to put us back on the gold standard at the pre-war parity of exchange, which we could not possibly sustain without the most violent deflation. This continued for about 10 years and resulted in tremendous unemployment and much misery in the coalfields and in all the industrial areas of this country. That was entirely a Treasury and a Bank of England decision.
When I said to Grigg, who was my boss at the Treasury when I was the Private Parliamentary Secretary to Winston Churchill, what a mistake this was, and how I knew that Churchill did not in his heart like doing this, Grigg replied that there was only one man ever who made the Treasury do what it did not want to do and that was Lloyd George; and that there would never be another ever; and, of course, it has turned out exactly that way.
I opposed in another place the return to the gold standard at the pre-war parity of exchange. Then, I could find only the support of Sir Frederic Wise, Sir Frank Nelson, Sir Robert Horne, Sir Alfred Mond (as he then was), Lord Beaverbrook, and, in the City of London, Mr. McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank—who said that it would be hell but did not do a thing. The only senior figure who did anything, and who resigned from the Bank of England, was a Mr. Vincent Vickers. So the Treasury and the Bank of England had it all their own way, and they had it all their own way for years and years. Long after he left the Exchequer, Winston Churchill wrote me a letter in which he said,
"I have now come around to your view that gold was being used as a vile trap to destroy us",
which was fairly strong language for the Chancellor of the Exchequer who took us back to the gold standard.
Then there came a flash of hope. President Roosevelt raised the price of gold. That was followed by the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan saved Europe from economic collapse at a very difficult moment. How did the Americans, do it? How did they finance it? They financed it out of gold bullion at Fort Knox, which was then standing at a very reasonable price. That is how it was financed. It cost nobody anything. It was financed out of liquid reserves, which the world so tragically lacks today. We have no such reserves. Why? Because we were taken back to despair, not by the British Treasury and the Bank of England, but by the Federal Reserve Board and the US Treasury, who appeared to me—and have always appeared to me—to dominate American politics and to act entirely on their own. No doubt they brought down President Carter, and now they look likely to bring down President Reagan. Why? Because they have steadily reduced the value of their gold reserves until they finally demonetised gold altogether and the dollar—and with it, every currency in the world. There is no currency today that is intrinsically worth anything except the paper that it is printed on. Until

1135
you correct that situation somehow, you will never get sustained recovery in international trade; of that I am certain.
We suffer now more from the lack of liquid resources than aything else. That is why we find difficulty even in coming to the assistance of the starving people of Ethiopia. We simply do not have the liquid reserves. We did have them; we had them in Fort Knox, with gold at a reasonable price. I believe—and I think I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in this—that there should be another Genoa Conference; not just a technical IMF Conference but a general international conference. They have the instruments in the IMF and in the central banks, who do not collaborate as they should at present, but who could, under the auspices of the IMF, be made to collaborate.
Unless we are to have a viable international monetary system, and until we do, there will not be sustained economic recovery in this country or anywhere else. The time has come, as Mr. Gordon Tether said in an admirable article, in The Times, to stop treating gold as a relic, and enable it once again to play a valuable part in the urgently needed reconstruction of the international monetary edifice. The world believes in gold and in nothing else—so that is what I plead for and pray for. And this is the last chance.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has been repeatedly and rightly thanked for choosing this Motion at exactly the right time, with reference to the timing of the Williamsburg Conference. I should like specifically to endorse his idea about how to construct the agenda for that conference; the idea of having papers saying what each member of the conference wants the other members to do seems to me to be an ingenious idea, which I hope will turn out to be productive if it is used.
I shall talk entirely about the IMF, with full provisos about my overwhelming ignorance of the matter. As I go along, I ask your Lordships to reflect upon the extent to which the commercial banks are influenced by—I will not say tied to—the kind of policy and decisions which come out of the IMF through the central banks of the member countries. We can only note with interest and perhaps alarm the increasing unwillingness of the commercial banks to do what the central banks think they ought to do in the matter of loans to relieve third world debt.
We have a whole lot of new phenomena that we have not yet caught up with. One of them in this country is Treasury guarantees, of, for instance, the South Africa standby. This, we have ascertained in this House, is something unknown until recently, that IMF loans and standby should be specifically and individually guaranteed by the people of the individual countries through their Treasuries. We have also the political facts, and I shall talk a lot about politics. Within the last year or two it has just so turned out that Kenya and Tanzania have been refused IMF loans, and South Africa and El Salvador have been accorded IMF loans. We have to form a realistic impression of
1136
the politics which do prevail in the IMF. These loans have, of course, produced set-piece debates in the Parliaments of many countries and round the table of the IMF itself.
I want to talk specially about the three big countries in South America, leaving aside Mexico for the moment: Brazil, Chile and Argentina. Our old friend Argentina is perhaps the most instructive country for the whole political aspect of IMF operations. They have been bailed out. In recent weeks and months the Argentinians' own inquiry into the Falkland War—their Franks Inquiry, as it were—have described the people in the former military Government, the Government officials who handled the IMF loan and who handled credits in general, as "crooks in white gloves". During the last year or two Argentina has openly proclaimed that it will spend its reserves on arms imports. During 1981 Argentina emerged as I think the only country which in recent years has doubled its arms purchase bill, thereby shooting ahead of the field. And, of course, Argentina, which has a large nuclear reprocessing plant not under international safeguards, is the only country in Latin America to have rejected not only the Treaty of Tlatelalco, which makes South America a non-nuclear zone, but also the Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Nevertheless, they are accorded IMF facilities, and the only comment the IMF has had to make on the nuclear programme of Argentina is that, being in the public sector, it is a bad thing and it ought to be in the private sector. I think one must make what judgment one best can of such values in their practical application.
My noble friend Lord Taylor has reminded us that the third world debt is at present 600 billion dollars, and I think we should also remember that the third world is responsible for 80 per cent. of world arms imports. Here I want to follow rather closely in Lord Eccles' footsteps. That is one reason to think that the politicisation of the IMF might now be due. Another reason is the sheer size of the problem, and the way it may be described, not implausibly, as the "debt bomb". The "debt bomb" is a phrase used by Mr. Maurice Bishop the Prime Minister of Grenada. I see that Lord Pitt is in his place and hope that perhaps time will see Mr. Bishop so converted that he fetches up in this House as well. Mr. Bishop speaks of using the debt bomb. What he means by this is that the debtor countries of the third world should get together and organise a simultaneous default, on what they hope will be their own terms, and just see what happens. His motivation, of course, is not disreputable. It is to force the pace of that redistribution of wealth between the North and South of the world which we all know is necessary if the human race is to survive in order. The extreme formulation has, of course, been rejected by the Non-Allied Conference in New Delhi; he did not get that phrase into the Declaration. But they did adopt something not too far from this general view of the future when they agreed that there should be collective debt negotiations, collective between the third world debtor countries. That is one side of it.
The other side is the manifest thinning of the backing, in the developed world, for these loans by the changing of the rules regarding the amount you have

1137
to have to back a loan, and also the thinning of the backing required from the debtor countries, and by the revaluation of that which you have to have to back a loan, in many ways which time prevents me going into. I do not want to pitch it too strongly, but I believe that it may be time for the IMF to answer those calls which are heard round the world, and also from certain quarters in Washington, including Mr. Schulz, to go away from the improvisation which has prevailed in recent years and to adopt something which might be called regulatory direction; that is to say, that the recipient countries should be directed in a more qualitative manner what to do about their economies and not so much in a simply neutral quantitative manner.
On the point of restructuring, which I suppose is generally now taken to be a code word for running the IMF and the World Bank and the IBLD together into a sort of super World Central Bank, there is no point, in my amateur opinion, in doing this unless the general political thrust of the lending is at the same time changed. If we are able to change the thrust of the lending it may not he necessary to restructure the machinery; at any rate, it would be pointless to do it without. What I am suggesting is an increase in conditionality or a new interpretation of the word "conditionality". This increase would not be ruled out by the 1979 IMF guidelines on conditionality, where it seems to a plain man's reading that there are plenty of ifs and buts and many hedges; but Article 4 does state in so many words that, in helping members to devise programmes to help the debtors to adjust, the fund will pay due regard to the domestic, social and political objectives of debtor countries. If that is not enough to cover the arms race, I do not know what is. It is a question of judgment by the member countries of the IMF whether that should be used to achieve a desirable effect in world affairs.
I suggest it should be considered by IMF member Governments whether or not this directive, or other documents, could be used to seek to forward a regional arms control agreement in South America, where you have three very large, not extremely poor, but dreadfully indebted countries who are engaging in an accelerating arms race against each other, the fall-out of which has already singed our beard in a way we are not going to forget very soon. If that were so, it would be no more than a widening of the purposes of existing international arrangements, which is always an intelligent thing to do if it can be done. I think in general the moral is that we should not be any longer so terrified of political lending, since, in my submission, a good deal of the lending that goes on now is highly political, not so much by deliberate intention as by default. I hope that our own Government and other similar Governments may use the all too short time before the Williamsburg meeting to see whether such a plan might not be devised, not for immediate adoption—it is going to take quite a number of years to switch in this direction—but, at any rate, it is not too late to begin, if that is the right direction, as I believe it is.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Lever of Manchester: My Lords, even in his absence I must put it on record how deeply grateful the
1138
whole House is to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for his thoughtful, constructive speech—I am very glad to record that he is back in his place, in case my previous comment amounted to unintentional libel. The noble Lord's thoughtful, constructive and most stimulating Motion and the speech in support of it seemed to me to put the House very deeply in his debt. It has brought out so many contributions from other Members of the House I hope that no one will mind if I do not manage to include a comment on each one, as I kept finding myself in agreement with most of what was said. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, replies he will find himself in agreement with the almost overwhelmingly benign and intelligent purposes of the House.
I was very touched by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, throwing me back into my youth in the House of Commons. I used to hear with great stimulation and satisfaction his courageous and common sense purposes on all these financial matters. At the heart of them he was urging us to apply our minds to the techniques of using monetary issues to relate to the fullest deployment of our wealth-creating resources, and to make, thereby, our monetary mechanisms the servant of our legitimate creative purposes. I am glad to see that he is still of the same mind. Although I do not necessarily agree with him on every single issue, I have agreed with a great many over the years and have always valued his contributions.
I will say just one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, but certainly not with any intention of offending him. He obviously regards me as more than an intermittent and temporary fount of party orthodoxy because of my presence on this Front Bench. Even in that brief reign let me trespass on the preserves of the Bishops' Bench by giving, as it were, a sacerdotal blessing to his purposes and his position. I cannot think of any single issue that he raised this afternoon with which I was not in the fullest agreement. I do not see why it cannot be a consensus in this House that we are all determined that these problems should be faced rather more intelligently than they have been in the past.
There are three central issues in the disturbed world money situation which threaten our recovery. They are three areas of great uncertainty and, I am sorry to say, three areas where for at least the last decade there has been continuous intellectual incoherence displayed by every one of the major Governments, perhaps including those in which I bore some minor share of collective responsibility.
These three areas are: the management of the exchange rates—that is, the parity relationships of one currency to another—the financing of deficits leading to and related to the banking crisis which has been discussed in this House before; and, finally, we must ask whether our leaders of the world will manage to plumb the same depths of inept incompetence in their responses to the collapse of OPEC that they displayed upon its rise, and bring economic miseries upon the world and maximise the difficulties in the world instead of responding adequately.
At the root of this decade of incoherence in these three areas—deficit financing, parity management and response to the oil cartel— is what the noble Lord, Lord Soames, rightly pointed out was a lack of the

1139
concepts of co-operation necessary for our prosperous interdependence to continue, which it has not. A great deal of that breakdown of co-operative internationalism was glossed over as a sort of Adam Smith view that if everyone looked after himself individually and every country looked after itself individually we would all prosper irresistibly. One gets the impression from some of these didactic spokesmen on behalf of the late Adam Smith that they read him, but carelessly. It is not very likely that if Adam Smith were alive today he would be opposed to traffic controls. He might possibly accept the traffic lights which have recently aroused the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, at Hyde Park Corner, but I think that in general he would be in favour of traffic controls and not snarled traffic, in spite of his sturdy belief in the value of individual effort in a market system.
Therefore, the central lesson that I believe we should get from the very wise and instructive Motion today is that if we want to tackle any of these great areas we must tackle them co-operatively. But it is not enough to have a sort of vague feeling of benign agreement. We must institutionalise that co-operation because that was a distinctive factor of post-war prosperity. It was not just some consensual rhetoric that was placed into the world. It was serious institutions like Bretton Woods, GATT and various other institutions which institutionalised the purposes of co-operation and made them durable, at least for a quarter of a century of unique wealth creation.
On the parity question little needs to be added to the many wise comments that have been made. We have to co-operate if we are to have an effective and stabilised parity policy. My brief statement on that is this. As a first step, at any rate, the leaders of the world should agree co-operatively and collectively that they will not permit the ludicrous and damaging grosser distortions of parity relationships that over and over again we have witnessed in the past few years. We all know the Government's position, their theory and practice. Their theory is very simple. If only one has a sound, wise Government that take wise actions, an obedient people who co-operate, and preferably an Opposition that applauds the wisdom of their actions, then the parity is residual; that is, one can leave it to look after itself and it will come to the right price in the market.
I must say that that theory has everything to commend it except that it bears not the smallest relationship to the facts of life of the past 20 years. Apart from that, it is almost irresistible. It is repeated with monotonous complacency by spokesmen on behalf of the Government, including, if he will not mind my saying so, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. It is all very well relying on this invisible hand—but it does not work. It produces monstrous and damaging results not only to ourselves but to others. We should have learned by now that one country's invisible hand seeking to correct its own difficulties may land a punch on the nose of another country. That has been notable in recent events.
Of course, the Government deny having a policy, but in fact they do have a policy as is seen from time to time: namely, they intervene when they get
1140
panicked and they find that their intervention is ineffective. One can hardly expect the Government to say, "Yes, we have a policy but only bring it out now and again when we are in a panic, and it is not very effective when we do bring it out". Obviously the alternative statement that they have no policy—not an impressive statement—is to be preferred.
But no Government in the world can seriously say that they are indifferent to the yo-yo nature of their currency's parity in the modern world. It is an absurdity. Our standard of life depends on it. Our trading relationships depend on it. Our import and export competitiveness depends on it. The value of our savings depends on it, as does even the dynamic of wage and price rises generally and its effect on society. It is an absurdity, and the Government should stop saying that they are indifferent to the parity. They have a strange view and I cannot quite make out what is their intellectual position—if I can dignify it with that polysyllable. Do they say that parities are wrong and that they can do nothing about it, or that the parities are right because the market says so? I do wish that they would tell us.
If they think that it was wrong but inevitable, then there are people who do not think that it is inevitable. It is inevitable if you do not have international co-operation, but you do not have to have your pound rocket up to $2·42 and then find it crashing down to under $1·50 while you tremble. Nobody knows where it is going to go now, by the way: up or down. I do not want to make any predictions, because they might not be particularly optimistic ones. But it is not good enough for the Government to say, "It is inevitable; there is nothing we can do about it". It is even more offensive for them to say that it is right, because the market said that it was right. That really has to be ended. We have to get a collective attempt by the leading Governments at Williamsburg to agree to intervene to prevent this.
I proposed this over a year ago in the House. I may say that, whatever differences of opinion the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and I have, he may rest assured that he enjoys my personal respect in the highest degree, whatever views any other persons may hold. I have every reason for saying that. The noble Lord said then that I was an incorrigible optimist because he had a cast iron opposition to this co-operation—America. He said they had declared as a sacred precept that they were not going to agree except in the gravest emergency. He said that I was an incorrigible optimist in believing that they would change their mind. I told him that they would, and they have. We have had the plainest statement from George Schultz, who is leading the world in this direction, and from Donald Regan at the Treasury. There were some noises off from Beryl Sprinkel in the background which give no cause for satisfaction. But he is not the power. You will find at this conference that America, Japan and Germany will all be speaking in the sense that was urged by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and which I am urging today. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, can give us some assurance that Britain will have a voice in sympathy and will not drag its heels.
I want to say a quick word on a very dangerous aspect of the world situation—the banking position.

1141
As most people know, what happened is that the formation of the OPEC cartel at the end of 1973 imposed massive sudden burdens, through the import of oil at the new price, on the poorest countries of the world. The Governments of the world should have sat down and answered the following simple questions: "Do we want to help these poor people to go on buying this oil? Do we want to help them with some investment in their economy, and, if so, how much as an aggregate? And, if we take that aggregate, who is to get it? How much from the aggregate and on what terms?" But this kind of simple, common sense outline strategy is something that our world leaders dislike. While they were pondering what might be done on behalf of the poorer countries, the banks stepped in and recycled the OPEC money. Most Members of this House will know what happened there.
There has, unfortunately, been an abdication by government, because, although everything seemed to be going merrily along from the end of 1973 until a year or two ago, this ramshackle system was defective in many important respects. First of all, only governments—and here I heartily agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—and nobody but governments, can organise the channelling into the right direction and the inhibiting when it tends to go in the wrong direction of these vast sums of lending. That is not neo-imperialism. That is acting in the interests of those countries to ensure that the purpose for which we are encouraging this transfer of resources—namely, the strengthening of these countries—is achieved. It is horrendous and staggering that so much of the money that was provided in these eight years—something like $650 billion to $750 billion—has gone in armaments, corruption and financing the megalomania of corrupt Ministers.
The sad thing is that in these countries, and in the advanced countries, there is always a lobby for lunacy. There is never a lobby for a sanity. None of the sane proposals are brought into discussion. If somebody wants to have an extra 10 fighter aircraft, there is a lobby in the supplying country and there is a lobby in the corrupt department of war where the Minister and all his acolytes are going to have their cut. The blame for this is squarely on the governments. The effects of this is that we have geared our economies and their economies to an uncontrolled flow of funds, whereby our exports are dependent on their demand, and their ability to keep their fragile political and financial situation going is dependent on this flow of funds. It has all come to a stop.
We are now in danger that our banking system is exposed, world trade is already damaged by the shrinking importations from those countries and political destablisation is proceeding apace there. The first thing that we have to do is to protect our banking system. I have not time now to dismiss all the populist fantasies that readily cross, belatedly, the minds of our leader writers at a time like this, about how it is time that we punished the banks and all the rest of it. The real problem is not punishing the banks; the real problem is maintaining them as healthy, strong, efficient, independent and able to perform their vital function in financing the world recovery on which we are all going to be dependent. Every dollar taken off the capital base of a bank is about $20 taken off its
1142
lending ability. That should be borne in mind when people are talking about the marginal question of what the banks can contribute.
The main central blame for the financial dangers we face now must lie with the governments. They encouraged this lending, they are the regulatory authorities and they are responsible to us for the safety of the banking system on which all our economies depend. I shall not at this late hour go into the mechanisms which have been explored by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, but whatever they are, we have got to preserve in being a healthy, effective and independent banking system able to do its part not only in financing the poorer countries but in general international finance and in domestic finance for the recovery we require.
Let me say a little about the future and then I have done on that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who is experienced in these matters, will not foster the illusion that a few magic strokes of the wand and the new lending that is needed in these countries will be forthcoming. That will be to repeat the anarchic abdication of governments in the past eight years.
When I made the proposal to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, he added to my other vices: having condemned me for optimism, he condemned me for impracticality when I said that, if you want sound financing, the simple rule must be that there has to be an outline strategy backed by the leading governments. They have to ask, "Do we want to help these poor people?" Some people do not. Some people say that it harms them. I happen to want to help these countries to get on their feet. They have to ask, "If we want to help them, how much, to whom, and on what terms?" If they do not do that, they will restore the same chaotic profligacy and misdirection of lending which has been taking place in the last eight years.
The only way that we can avoid that is not by action by any one country, but by the leading countries of the world sitting down, analysing the problem, agreeing among themselves what they are prepared to contribute to help throughout the world in this way and then formulating the mechanisms—in co-operation with the banking system no doubt, but with the banking system disciplined, as well as supported by, as it must be, these governments, if we are to continue in that role. That is all that I can say in general about that now. Clearly the IMF will play a part. If it is going to play its proper part we have to bring its mandate up to date or, in the jargon, we must open a new window related to this kind of long-term lending, not the emergency lending which is normally employed.
I conclude by saying this. I entirely agree with those noble Lords, including the mover of the Motion, who said that this Williamsburg Summit is going to take place at a crucial time for mankind. On its decisions and on its follow-up will depend whether we really do have the sustained recovery which we so desperately need in the world at present. I would like to feel—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, can inspire this feeling in me when I have heard what he has to say—that the British Government are going to be prominent in restoring the kind of world co-operation

1143
in monetary and economic affairs that is so vital for the welfare of the world.
5.51 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I do not think that anyone would dissent from the aspirations expressed by my noble friend in the Motion that he has moved today. He spoke in terms of great moderation as well as forcefulness. His analysis of the situation was a comprehensive one. We have just listened to a speech from the noble Lord, Lever of Manchester, in very much the same vein. It was a speech of great charm and of insight. The noble Lord will not expect me to agree with everything that he says, least of all with the remedies that he proposed. Nevertheless, I must pay tribute to the sincerity and insight with which he spoke.
In the trailer for this debate which appeared in The Times newspaper this morning it was stated by the commentator at the end that:
'What he"—
namely Lord Lever—
"and indeed Lord Soames, will say has probably all been said before, and it is nonetheless relevant for that".
The leader shows a remarkable insight into what noble Lords were going to say, but I feel that its verdict at the end is perhaps less generous than the circumstances of this debate would suggest, because I believe that a great deal has been said this afternoon which has added to our knowledge and our insight into these extremely important problems.
When we look back over the past, we in fact tend to do so through a golden haze of indifferent memory. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, when he refers to the world having enjoyed a period of some 40 or 50 years between 1931 and 1980 without a major recession, he rather overlooks the fact that there were quite considerable fluctuations in business activity and in world trade during that period. It is perfectly true that the scale of the present recession is considerable by reference to those earlier fluctuations, but that is because it has been sparked off by circumstances which of themselves are quite unusual. It is true that in the 'fifties and 'sixties we lived through a period of low inflation rates and expanding output. We are all inclined to look back upon those years as the golden years. They were, for the most part, years of Conservative Government, but I shall leave that on one side.
Of course, a great deal of the institutional framework was laid down in the years immediately after the 1939–45 war, the principal institutions being the Bretton Woods agreement, the IMF and the GATT. We ought to remember that both the IMF and the GATT not only remain in being, but in fact continue to do an extraordinarily good job. My noble friend Lord Soames, the noble Lords, Lord Roberthall, Lord Ezra and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that we must stand out against the forces of protectionism. But that, of course, is exactly what the GATT has been doing, within what I may describe as very, very difficult circumstances, with a considerable degree of success. The GATT, after all, does bring together some 88 countries, and agreement was
1144
reached—admittedly after a long period of discussion and negotiation in which the United Kingdom played a very prominent and, if I may say so, an extremely valuable part—that it was very important to maintain the open trading system. It set in hand various studies which were designed to reinforce and extend that open trading system. So we ought not, perhaps, to decry too much the success of the international institutions that we do have.
Let me touch very briefly on the question of the prospects for 1983, because this matter underlies the whole of my noble friend's Motion. There are signs that recovery is now getting under way in the United States, in this country and in other parts of the world. It is true that in 1981 there was the commencement of a recovery which was then cut short, mainly, I may say, by developments in the United States with the rise in interest rates which took place in the autumn of that year. But the prospects now look very much better. In the United States, as noble Lords will know because we have touched on this matter quite recently, the Administration have revised sharply upwards their estimates of economic growth this year. While originally they were expecting a rate of growth of the order of 2½ per cent. by the end of this year, they are now talking in terms of a rate of growth by the fourth quarter of 1983 in the region of 5 per cent. A slower inflation, not only in this country but in most of the leading economies of the world, and lower interest rates, provide the basis for the resumption of healthy economic growth.
What most industrial countries now expect is growth of the order of 1 to 2 per cent. during this coming year. There is reason to hope that the activity in developing countries may also recover. There are, of course, risks and uncertainties, but, nevertheless, taking these into account, the prospects for 1983, provided we stay firmly on course in following a responsible financial and monetary policy, are much better than they have been for many years past.
I turn to the question which has been raised of the international institutions in this field. The uncertain international environment has prompted calls—and these calls were repeated in this debate this evening—for new institutions; for example, a new Bretton Woods. Indeed, this proposition was put forward very informally by Mr. Schultz in a speech which he made towards the end of last year, although afterwards he said that he was merely thinking aloud. Two points really need to be made here. The first point is that no new international institution will solve the sort of problems which arise if there are serious divergencies in economic policy as between individual countries.
That is the first point and it is one of very great importance, because we have seen the result of this in the upset which has just occurred in the European Monetary System. Fortunately, and with considerable credit to my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, those difficulties have been overcome. But if you have divergent economic policies, as you have had in the case of France, on the one hand, and in the case of Germany, on the other, you simply cannot avoid quite massive strains. The fact that these strains have been dealt with is important, but we ought not to overlook the lesson

1145
which lies there. Of course, it is true—and the point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold—that volatile exchange rates do cause problems for international trade and investment.
The development of forward and future markets has, to some extent, helped to cope with the risks associated with exchange rate fluctuations, but substantial problems remain. At bottom, the position quite simply is that exchange rate movements between the world's major currencies reflect instabilities in the world economy itself, and it would be surprising if it were not so. Massive swings in individual countries' balance of payments have been one cause. Exchange rate fluctuations also reflected differing rates of inflation. Unco-ordinated economic policies—for example, fiscal laxity, which places too much strain on monetary policy—in particular countries have led to high interest rates, and this has affected the pattern of exchange rates. The sharp increases in oil prices in 1973 and 1979 and uncertainty over future prices have also disrupted exchange rate stability.
In the end there is no way to suppress the effects of these instabilities. Attempts to try artificially to do so, either through exchange controls or through intervention in the markets, merely lead to sharp shifts in domestic interest rates and monetary conditions, and these are translating international disturbances into domestic markets. The only way to achieve exchange rate stability is through tackling fundamental instabilities in the world economy, and this can only be done through the convergence of economic performance among the major countries, and in particular overcoming high and varying interest rates in the major economies.
We are clear, therefore, that what is required is not a new institutional framework, but a strengthening of existing institutions coupled with responsible monetary and financial policies in individual states. As regards strengthening the existing institutions, I have already referred to the continuing work which is being done in the GATT in resisting the spread of protectionism, and I am sure that this has support throughout the whole of the House.
I should like to turn briefly to the IMF. On the occasion of our last debate on this subject which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lever, in December of last year, he expressed great reservations about the ability of the IMF to cope with these problems, and he said that what then was needed was some new institution. But, in fact, the IMF has succeeded in coping with these problems, and it has done so without any major default occurring.
Agreement has been reached on an increase of some 47½ per cent. in the IMF quotas and as a result they will go up from 61 billion SDRs to 90 billion. The important thing now is that these quota increases should be ratified at an early date to make the increase effective by the end of 1983. The World Bank, of course, has been another major force in this field and one which does a great deal both to finance and to encourage development in the developing countries. As regards the International Development Agency of the World Bank, the sixth replenishment will total some £5½ billion, and the United Kingdom's contribution of £555 million to this has now been
1146
agreed. The important thing is that the United States should now agree their increase in their contribution to this fund.
Lord Lever of Manchester: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he is satisfied that the existing increase of the IMF and similar funds is adequate to insure us against the developing banking crisis and to ensure the steady flow of the required funds to the previous borrowers?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, this is the point on which there is a fundamental difference of perception between the noble Lord and myself. As I said in December—and I adhere to this view—the present situation is a cause for concern but not for alarm. This is the difference. Steps were necessary; it was essential to take them. Those steps have been taken. The funds available to the IMF have been substantially increased—an increase of 47½ per cent. is a very large one indeed. The funds of the World Bank have been replenished. The most interesting thing here is the ability that has been shown, both by the international institutions and by the Governments of the leading industrial nations, to work together to deal with these problems. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Soames were both pleading, very rightly, for international co-operation, and here we have two instances where that international co-operation has been brought into play, and, if I may say so, has been brought into play successfully.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what will happen if the IMF and these institutions lend more money to these third world debtors and all they do is to waste it, as they have wasted the money before?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, if I may say so, my noble friend takes an unduly pessimistic view of the situation. In fact, the IMF imposes considerable restrictions. When it advances money it requires changes in domestic financial policy. This, in fact, we learned ourselves in 1976 when the then Administration raised funds from the IMF, and for a brief period during that Administration public expenditure had to be brought under control because of the influence of the IMF.
The IMF itself behaves in a responsible manner. I am not in any way saying that the problems which are faced—particularly in the Latin American countries—are not very great indeed. But no one in the world would gain if these economies collapsed. It is very important—and the point has been made during the course of this debate and it was made in the December debate—that these countries follow responsible domestic policies, and the pressures of the IMF are directed to that end.
Because, unfortunately, time is very brief, I now want to turn to the general question of the economic summits, and particularly to the Williamsburg Summit. The Versailles Communiqué in June 1982—and this was after the last economic summit—acknowledged that summit countries have particular responsibility to work for the greater stability of the world monetary system. Co-operation here is essential, and in the pursuit of these policies it is essential to maintain the external and internal values

1147
of currencies. The pursuit of soundly balanced and consistent monetary and fiscal policies contributes to external stability. Large fiscal deficits reflected in high interest rates can spark significant capital flows with consequent exchange rate instabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Lever, is wrong, if I may say so, in saying that the Government are indifferent to the exchange rate. The policy has been stated by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on many occasions. The exchange rate is one of the factors taken into account when interpreting domestic monetary conditions and taking policy decisions. But the one thing we cannot do is to ignore the effects of the enormous changes wrought by the increases in the price of oil in 1973 and in 1979. Nor can we ignore the effects of the fall in oil prices which is now occurring. The increase in oil prices in 1979 was followed by a big rise in the pound, and the fall in oil prices has been followed by a fall in sterling. These are simply the facts of life, and there is nothing that the Government—either this Government or any other Government—can do to stop the effects of massive changes of that sort feeding through into exchange rates.
Perhaps I may come specifically to the Williamsburg summit. This, of course, is attended by the heads of the seven major industrial countries. If I may make the point to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the President of the European Commission attends as an observer. He is not in fact a member of the summit, although there are large numbers of discussions which take place between the heads of governments and the President of the European Community. The discussions will include the outlook for the world economy. The summit will consider the policies necessary to ensure international stability and to help the recovery become firmly established without provoking a renewed upsurge in inflation.
It is particularly important for the major countries together to agree over the need to maintain prudent medium-term fiscal and monetary policies and to sustain their counter-inflationary thrust. The benefits of this policy are now evident in terms of lower inflation and lower interest rates. It would be misleading to believe that by adopting expansionary policies governments, either individually or collectively, could dramatically improve longer-term prospects for the world economy. Indeed, such policies would only serve to rekindle inflationary expectations and to undermine the basis of recovery.
But, of course, we have to recognise that we are dealing with sovereign states whose perception of their own internal interests and of international interests may, and do, differ from one another. Important examples in the past are the United States and France. This is a matter of real significance. It is a matter of real significance that both these countries are modifying their policies in a way which is helpful to world recovery. But the very existence of summits is testimony to recognition of the need—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord now wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I wish to claim a little "injury time", if your Lordships will allow me.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am afraid that the House, by its own rules of order, is not enabled to grant my noble friend "injury time". I am afraid all my noble friend may do is to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I think that there has been a good deal of "injury time", and it is a shame that we cannot take this debate on for literally another couple of minutes to allow the mover of the Motion to say a few words, if only in response to the Front Bench. But, of course, if my noble friend tells me that all that is possible—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am afraid that these are the rules of order, and your Lordships are careful not to go beyond your rules of order, particularly on the short debates. I am extremely sorry for my noble friend, but my noble friend Lord Cockfield was interrupted once or twice. He had the bare minimum allotted to him by the rules, and I am afraid it is just not allowed.
Lord Soames: All right. Who am I, in view of the times I have asked your Lordships to stay within the rules, to go outside them myself? By farce majeure I beg leave, unfortunately, to withdraw this Motion in the hope that it will, in the event, have achieved some purpose.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Partially Deaf
6.16 p.m.
Lord Harvington Lord Harvington rose to call attention to the plight of the partially deaf; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, and say at the beginning that I feel like Antonio in the Merchant of Venice when I say, "Alas, I am the unhappy cause of all this quarrel". I have been making some inquiries into how noble Lords have dealt with the matter which I propose to raise this evening, and I find that for some time now the noble Lord who has raised it has always prefaced his remarks with the desire to declare an interest; namely, that he was affected by hardness of hearing himself.
I am afraid that I am no exception to this rule. I have to ask for the same favour from your Lordships as other noble Lords have done in the past. In fact, if it were possible for 25 per cent. of this House to raise this matter they would all have to ask for the same indulgence. I made some statistical inquiries into what the probable deafness, to some degree, of this noble House is, and I find that it is verging on 30 per cent., which is perhaps more than your Lordships had realised.
After the 1981 International Year of Disabled People we moved, in 1982, to our own Government's Information Technology Year, and now, in 1983, we see the early days of the United Nations' International

1149
Year of World Communications; wonderful opportunities to focus attention upon the invisible handicap of deafness, which, in all its degrees and conditions, means a fundamental breakdown in human communication.
The Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research has reported that preliminary results of a national study show that some 10 million people in the United Kingdom have a significant hearing defect. Moreover, one in ten of those examined who believed their hearing to be perfect had a disorder that amounted to some degree of disability. This study, showing, as it does, that one in five suffers from hearing loss to greater or lesser extent, presents a challenge to us to try to overcome some of the problems.
I do not, however, in the limited time at my disposal this evening intend to raise issues concerning the difficulties of the education of children, nor areas relating to care and provision for profoundly deaf people, tremendously important though they are. Much valuable and dedicated work is being undertaken by the professionals in a wide variety of disciplines. The devoted and effective work which has been done by the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, Mr. Jack Ashley, is a shining example to us all.
By far the greatest number of people with hearing loss are middle-aged or elderly, and I suggest to this noble House that not enough is being done to help them. Certainly hearing aids are provided free of charge under the National Health Service, if you can get them; but you have to wait a long time. However, there is a widely mistaken impression that all conditions and degrees of hearing loss can be remedied solely by hearing aids. But a hearing aid does not give back normal hearing; it is not a hearing restorer. For very many people, wearing a hearing aid is like spending one's life communicating on a very had telephone line. When he speaks in the debate my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye will, I think, deal with some technical aspects of hearing aids, and we shall be interested to hear from him.
There is much encouragement in the developments undertaken by both the BBC and the IBA to provide sub-titled television programmes for deaf people. How often do we stop to think that sub-titles on TV are as important to deaf people as is radio to those who are blind? The sub-titles can be provided as an extension of the TV Teletext systems, but the cost of the Teletext sub-titling component is over and above that of the regular television set itself, and therefore it is out of reach of the vast majority of the people who have need for it. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has established a Television for the Deaf Fund, to provide this kind of set for people who have other handicaps besides being deaf, but, unhappily, the fund attracts very little attention or public support.
I was much struck by a report in The Times on 5th January about Government provision of an extra £6 million to be spent over three years, to boost mental health care for the elderly. The report added that about half a million elderly people suffer from dementia. In this connection it is important to bear in mind some of the effects of hearing impairment on the lives of old people. They amount to a form of sensory
1150
deprivation and lead to social isolation. Social isolation is, in turn, associated with a number of other unmet needs in older people, and I am advised that sometimes the sensory deprivation is of such a severe degree that the person's mental state becomes impaired; for example, the acute confusional state known as dementia.
What now needs to be done to improve the hearing ability of older people? There is the problem of early ascertainment of disease in the elderly, and this is most important. This is a general problem, and in the case of deafness it is known that over half of the elderly have never had their hearing tested, and very many of them have no hearing aids. No doubt screening programmes in the elderly population must rest primarily with medical care and depend on the work of not only general practitioners but also health visitors and other community workers. This situation would call for further developments to the audio-logical centres. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will say something on this aspect of our problem.
The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is actively considering a number of these issues, but there is a limit to what a voluntary organisation can do. Ideally many more forces—statutory and voluntary—should be looking at the multifaceted problem of deafness in ageing as one of high priority. Many of the difficulties that I have outlined would be eased if there were greater awareness of the problems of deafness on the part of the general public and professional people associated with the care of the elderly. The elderly themselves surely have the right to better expectations of the alleviation of their problems. How encouraging it would be to break this important and bleak acceptance of the effects of ageing; and indeed the cost would be in inverse ratio to the benefits conferred. Much of what I have suggested would cost at any rate some money, but funds directed towards positive programmes earlier in people's lives could probably relieve the costly care and provision later in their lives.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Sympathetic Hearing Scheme launched last year by the Royal National Institute and other organisations in the sphere of deafness—with financial support from the DHSS—which aims to make everyday activities, such as shopping, simpler for everyone with hearing difficulties. The scheme uses the international ear symbol, which is being widely displayed wherever people with hearing difficulties can obtain special service. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether his department is likely to make available further funds for the continuation of this important scheme.
There is such a lot that can be done to help the deaf and hard of hearing people in everyday life which does not require the allocation of large sums of money. The Sympathetic Hearing Scheme, to which I have referred, promotes guidelines to be followed when dealing with anyone with hearing problems, and I should like to think that these guidelines can become an established code of practice and can be widely taken into account in schools, clubs, community organisations, et cetera, throughout the country.
Now I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the following helpful points, in the hope that each of

1151
you will, in turn, mention them and commend them to others. I also hope that my noble friend will consider them as being suitable to form a simple code which would be available on a takeaway basis in general practitioners' waiting rooms or in chemists' shops. The first and most important point to remember is to get the attention of the person to whom you are speaking. Secondly, on no account shout. To shout is a common reaction, but it does not help, and only causes embarrassment. Speak slowly and clearly, but do not exaggerate your facial expressions, or distort your face. Try to face the light as well as the person to whom you are speaking, and try to cut out as much as possible of the background noise. Do not smoke, eat, or do anything that involves putting your hand in front of your face. Lip readers especially must be able to see your mouth. Use plain language. Many words look the same to lip readers. The more common the word, the better. If absolutely necessary, write down essential words. Those are some of the ideas—and I am sure that there may well be others—which I believe we can all put into practice with deaf people and which I should like to see in the form of an official code issued from the ministry.
I do not want this opportunity to pass without referring to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which has done so much to improve provision for handicapped people in general. As a result of that legislation, there has been wide discussion upon the many and special problems which handicapped people have in everyday life. This has resulted in marked public concern about mobility, self-care and so on. Sadly, however, into these discussions there rarely enter the problems of deafness—which, to my mind, seems to remain the Cinderella of the incapacitated. The much higher expectation of life will produce these problems in ever-increasing numbers. We want to achieve wide public awareness of deafness and to harness it.
Two hundred years ago, Doctor Samuel Johnson called deafness the most desperate of human calamities. It is still a desperate calamity. Deafness is not a killer but it is a destroyer. It destroys so much that is vital in our everyday lives. Relationships within the family, with friends and with those with whom we work are constantly under strain when there is a breakdown in easy communication. We are impatient and uncaring when sufferers misunderstand or seem outright dim. Rejection and isolation follow. It need not happen if there was more thought and sensitivity to what it means when one cannot hear normally. I beg to move for Papers.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Pry's-Davies: My Lords, we are all particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for having given us the opportunity of debating the problems of the deaf. The noble Lord puts the figure at 10 million people; the Royal Commission puts it lower at between 2½ million and 3 million people and from some 125,000 to 130,000 children and their families. They are people who are in isolation, who no longer hear the ticking of the clock or the song of the birds. My reading has taken me back to two basic documents, the 1975 Report of the Sub-committee on
1152
Rehabilitation of the Deaf and the 1976 and 1981 Reports of the Sub-committee on Services for Deaf Children, both documents having been addressed to the DHSS. Both sub-committees expressed surprise that more had not been done for the hearing impaired in the preceding years and that the service for the deaf was not more highly developed.
For example, the reports and the NHS commission drew attention to lack of collaboration between the NHS and the local authorities in the provision of services. The rehabilitation sub-committee found that there was even a lack of co-operation between the public and the voluntary bodies and a lack of access to centres of treatment and rehabilitation. The children's sub-committee called in particular for early screening of children, for screening to be administered to ail infants at about the age of eight months and for a review about the time of the child's third birthday. It emphasised the conclusion which is obvious to all: that delay in diagnosing hearing defects of young children can lead to permanent impairment of a child's development of language and speech.
The rehabilitation sub-committee criticised the almost total absence of follow-up caused by the lack of adequately trained staff in the NHS to carry out the skilled instruction that is needed by a large proportion of patients who could and should benefit from the services for the deaf. We have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, that due to the ordinary processes of ageing the elderly are probably the single group which makes the greatest demand on the services for the deaf.
All of us tend to get deafer as we get older and, although this interference with the quality of life goes on day in and day out, this can lead to social isolation. Nevertheless, the elderly are often slow to consult a doctor about the deterioration of their hearing. It is very difficult to educate the elderly to accept technological aids. It would be revealing to know how many patients have never used their hearing aid, although family and friends have prevailed on them to have one. One may well ask why spectacles are an acceptable aid but hearing aids are not.
The reports to which I referred, those of 1975, 1976 and 1981, focus the problems facing the services for the deaf. Because they focus the problem, this should by now have led to better facilities. I was chairman of the Welsh Hospitals Board between 1968 and 1974. I cannot now recall a single meeting when the board reviewed and set its priorities for its services for the deaf. Unfortunately, deafness ranked relatively low among our priorities—partly because there was little or no acute awareness of the problem but also because by the late 1960s (as your Lordships will know) the field was littered with critical reports calling for urgent reforms in facilities for the mentally ill, for the mentally handicapped and the elderly. The NHS had to respond urgently to these new pressures brought upon it.
I accept that the escalating pressures which exerted themselves at the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s have still not levelled off. Nevertheless, I think we are entitled to ask what improvements have been made in the service for the deaf during the last few years. The 1975 rehabilitation report called for the appointment of a new worker who would be called the hearing

1153
therapist. To this the DHSS made some little response. In the DHSS chief medical officer's report for 1981 we are told that there were 20 hearing therapists then in post and that eight students had commenced training in 1981 at the City Literary Institute.
By any standard this is a tiny number. How many are under training in 1982–83? How many are likely to be under training in 1983–84? Can the City Literary Institute train more students? If not, can more students be trained elsewhere? The children's sub-committee recognised the health visitor as being the ideal person to undertake screening for children under five years of age. Does the health visitors' scheme of study now include training in screening techniques for infants as recommended by the sub-committee? Can we ask when the last national survey of screening for defective hearing in pre-school children was carried out and what were the results? Has the number of health visitors been increased, as was suggested by the subcommittee?
In passing, may I mention that I understand that some parents have to effect an insurance in respect of hearing aids given to, or loaned to, their children by the area health authority; and they pay an annual premium of £24. Is this too heavy a risk for the NHS to carry?
Living, as I do, about a dozen miles from Cardiff, I appreciate the contribution made by the Institute of Hearing Research established at the University Hospital of Wales in 1979. There are related units at Southampton, Glasgow and Nottingham. I am informed that the unit at Cardiff has made a significant contribution to the deaf in South Glamorgan.
Can we be sure that the quality and range of service available at Cardiff, Nottingham, Southampton and Glasgow, is also available to the country in general? Beyond the reach of these four centres, how long is the waiting list? I understand on good authority that there is at least one district authority in my part of the world where people are kept waiting for two years between referral by the GP and appointment with a consultant. This appears to me to be too long. In passing, might I say that it is to be regretted that waiting lists are not published.
More and more emphasis is being properly placed on the prevention of handicap and impairment generally. During the last two decades the medical profession has become more aware of the damage to hearing that may be caused to people working in noisy conditions. Can we be assured that full weight is being given to this risk? What steps are being taken to ensure that noise levels at the place of work are being reduced, in alerting working people to the effect of noise, and in ensuring that the industrial worker who is exposed to excessive noise is adequately protected from the conditions in which he has to work?
It is not uncommon for industrial workers, who suffer a deterioration of hearing, like the elderly, to be slow to seek advice. Kemp and Kemp, the authoritative work on Quantum of Damages for Personal Injuries, in its stop press issue published in February this year, referred to the dearth of reported court awards for loss of hearing, but pointed out, and here I quote:
"There are apparently a large number of cases involving loss of hearing likely to come before the courts in the near future".
1154
In a judgment in the Court of Appeal in 1980 it was said that there were 2,000 writs outstanding against one large employer alone for compensation for damage to hearing, and no doubt the same kind of claims are being made against other employers in industry.
This brings me to technology and my final point. I understand, and probably we shall hear more of this this evening, that the main difficulty which the deaf experience with a hearing aid is that it is unselective and that it amplifies and distorts the noise in a room. It lacks the discrimination mechanism that allows the person who hears normally to distinguish the voice which he is looking for, or to distinguish clearly what is being said when two or three people are talking at the same time. But I also understand that, using micro-electronics, it should be possible to bring the same kind of selectivity to the impaired of hearing who relies on his deaf aid. Is the Minister able to confirm whether this by-product of micro-electronics is feasible within the next few years and at a reasonable price?
I appreciate that I have asked a large number of questions, and if the noble Lord the Minister is unable to come up with detailed information this evening, I should be grateful if the questions were noted by the department. As I have said, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for having given me the opportunity of asking the questions.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, recollecting the recent brief argument we had in your Lordships' House about our rules of order and bearing in mind the advice recently given to us by the Select Committee on Procedure, I must not be too fulsome in my thanks to the noble Lord for introducing this subject, save to say he has introduced a very important subject indeed. I entirely agree with him that it is appropriate that this subject of the partially deaf should be raised in your Lordships' House.
I wonder how many of your Lordships recollect the noble Lord on this side of the House who was making an interesting speech, when he was suddenly interrupted by a loud voice from some remote recess in your Lordships' House with the words, "Speak up, please". The speaker stopped in his tracks with the words, "I am so sorry, my Lords, I had no idea anybody was listening". Noble Lords do listen; they listen with great care, but it is nevertheless a fact that some of them do not hear quite as well as they would like to do.
The noble Lord has focused his Motion on the general question of the partially deaf. I think it is right and sensible to do that because, in an era in which the age of our population is increasing, there is no doubt there will be a continual increase in the numbers who are partially deaf. It is entirely right that the problems of the totally deaf, or those who are tragically deaf from birth, are very different, very much more complex and perhaps much more difficult to deal with.
It is a fact, as has already been underlined, that the deaf are, in a sense, doubly handicapped. They are obviously handicapped merely by the fact that their hearing is impaired—which is a handicap in itself—but many are further handicapped because

1155
they suffer educationally as a result of their hearing impairment. It is an important subject and therefore I ask: what can we do?
First, we must look at the action we can take, and perhaps should take, in order to reduce the incidence of impairment of hearing. That means that we must pause, whenever possible, to look at the causes. I think I should be right if I underlined one of the causes and put it near the top of my list—that is, noise. I have no idea whether life exists on some other planet out in space. I doubt frankly whether the noble Prelate who is to speak shortly would know that. But, if there are other people up there somewhere else, they will know we are here. They will have heard us. We live on a very, very noisy planet indeed. I think there is some evidence that the result of noise in society is in part responsible for the increasing incidence of impairment of hearing. I hope we shall look at that.
We must also look at diseases of one kind or another which themselves contribute to the impairment of hearing: complicated and difficult subjects like Ménière's disease, which is arising with increasing frequency and perhaps increasing severity; disturbing things like tinnitus, and so on. More and more research needs to be done into those matters, their causation, their treatment and, if possible, their eradication. We must look again into the progress which is being made, although perhaps only marginally, into the incidence of genetic factors which are known to contribute in some way to the incidence of deafness in our population.
If we accept that we cannot always prevent deafness arising, certainly in an ageing population in which some deafness is merely part of the general degenerative process of age, deafness will obviously still arise. We must therefore turn to the action we should take to minimise the consequences of hearing impairment. First of all, I should underline something that has already been said. We must all learn to speak with much more clarity and we must also learn, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has said, to make sure that when we are speaking, I hope with more clarity, especially to elderly people or people we suspect may have some impairment of hearing, we face the hearer.
It is remarkable how many people with partially impaired hearing lip read to an extent without perhaps always understanding that they do lip read. The noble Lord is entirely right in saying that we should not shout. It is rather odd that one has only to be in a wheelchair when one finds that everybody shouts. They seem to think that because one is disabled in one way one must be deaf as well. The noble Lord is right: shouting does not help, but clarity of speech does.
Here one must make a particular plea to the very young, who seem to me to speak with less and less clarity and less and less precision of articulation than perhaps we did in the past. My own grandchildren frequently tell me their grandpa is getting deaf. I say "No, it is just that you all mumble". They do mumble, and I hope that the schools will do something to improve the articulation of our children. If they do that they will certainly improve the lives of those children's grandparents. This apples not only to the young, but also to all those who work with the elderly. I think that among social workers there is not yet a
1156
sufficient understanding and realisation of the importance of clarity of diction and of articulation, and of facing the hearer when speaking and giving messages.
Let me turn now to the general question of hearing aids, which has already been referred to. It is an area in which we have made immense progress, though it is true that hearing defects vary. Some are more susceptible of assistance with a hearing aid of one kind or another, but many do benefit, and benefit very profoundly. It is a fact that we have now pioneered and developed much more acceptable hearing aids which are less obtrusive and more easy to wear.
I am very glad indeed that throughout the National Health Service, and through our audiology clinics, we now find it possible to issue the very small behind-the-ear hearing aids to a much larger number of people than was formerly possible. Nevertheless, it is still the case that, sometimes, the private sector can provide, privately, hearing aids which individual people find preferable and more suitable to their needs. I hope we shall make sure that the public sector, and the provision through the National Health Service, keeps pace with the very best in the private sector.
Let me now turn briefly to the question of subtitling of television programmes, films and things of that kind. That is admirable and it must be encouraged. Speaking as one whose hearing is not dramatically impaired, I would much rather listen to an Italian opera in Italian, with English subtitles, than listen to the same opera translated into English. This tendency to subtitle programmes is very helpful indeed to the deaf, but is is also quite acceptable to some who are not deaf.
Progress is being made in the television world, and there is an increasing recognition of these needs. If I may say something personal, as many noble Lords know, for nearly 14 years I have presented for Granada Television up in the North-West a kind of television information programme very much aimed at the elderly and at the under-privileged. Some five years ago, we started signing those programmes; in other words, in a little box at the corner of the screen we have a delightful and accomplished lady who signs the programme for those whose hearing is impaired.
Sign language is very attractive—very much like ballet, in many ways—and if one watches it one learns it. It is quite helpful. We have been signing those programmes for over four years without any damage to the programmes for other people, but to the great benefit of those whose hearing is impaired, and I venture to hope that many others will follow the example which we set many years ago up there.
Perhaps I may add to the general question of a little more research and effort into the provision of other forms of equipment and aid for those whose hearing is impaired. A great deal has been done. British Telecom have done some splendid work with the adaptation of telephones with volume control switches on them, and devices which in some cases can regulate the pitch of a telephone so as to make it very much more audible to people whose hearing is impaired. Work has also been done with the provision of doorbells, which are accompanied by a visual message of a flashing light, and devices of that kind, which are of great assistance to the elderly.

1157
That is British Telecom. But what of British Rail? When the station announcer says, "The train now standing at platform so-and-so", those of us with the most acute hearing in the world cannot hear what is being announced. Would it not be better not only for the deaf, but for all of us, if, simultaneously, a visual message went up, so that we could all read it, whether deaf or not, and so that we all knew what the message was? So I hope that we shall add visual advice, as well as purely aural advice, in all those places where advice is given to citizens on one matter or another.
Leaving the question of action of various kinds in order to minimise the consequences of hearing impairment, let me just touch briefly on the subject which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—the question of hearing defects caused by noisy work situations. Here there really is a problem. Over and over again, I have found that people who have been working in very noisy situations, and with very noisy devices, have not been wearing ear protectors which they ought to wear—probably because education has not been adequate to impress upon them the need to do so.
But I have one fear, which perhaps the noble Lord the Minister may be able to allay when he replies. I have the impression that, from time to time, we perhaps lag a little behind some of our European partners in our recognition of deafness as an industrial disease caused by industrial processes and, therefore, qualifying for compensation of one kind or another. I should like some reassurance on that point, because, certainly, we lagged behind some years ago and we may have caught up.
Finally, and to summarise, I should like to put one fairly general question to the noble Lord the Minister. It is a general question concerning resources and Government initiatives in general, and it is in a number of parts. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether there is a commitment from the Government to put effort, if not further resources, into the elimination of noise in our society. It is a factor. Some years ago, I carried out audiology tests on a whole lot of young people coming into industry, and we discovered quite a worrying degree of hearing impairment at certain pitches. I tended to think that it came from the level of noise to which they chose to listen in the discos in which they spent their evenings. I do not know. But we ought to do something to try to eliminate noise, whether it is aircraft noise, traffic noise or any other kind of noise.
Let us be clear, my Lords. What is noise? Noise is unwanted sound. For example, to me the Tannhaüser overture of Wagner is beautiful music. To others, it may just be noise. There are some youths to whom the desperate noise of a motor-bike is music. To me, it is just noise. So I hope that the Government will do what they can to eliminate noise, in the sense of its being unwanted sound, from our society.
Next, I should like to have some reassurance on the extent of support for research into the means of preventing deafness and of preserving hearing. I should like to hear a little about an increase in resources for the provision of aids of one kind or another for those whose hearing is impaired. That
1158
means not just hearing aids, but also the other aids which can make life a little safer and a little easier for those who are deaf. I should like to have reassurance on our standards of compensation for those whose hearing has been irreparably damaged as a result of working in a very noisy environment; for, despite the disappearance of the cotton trade and the old weaving sheds, there still are some very noisy working environments.
Finally, I should like to have some reassurance on the Government's backing of education for the community as a whole into the needs of the deaf and into ways of minimising the consequences of deafness. That means, surely, education aimed at higher standards of articulate speech among our society as a whole, and encouraging the public as a whole to understand the problems of deafness. If this short debate, which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has done anything to spread a greater understanding of the problems of hearing impairment, then it will have served a very useful purpose.
6.59 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for initiating this debate. It is a difficult debate because it is not easy to define its scope. I am told that there are very few people who are totally deaf. The great majority of people have a tiny capacity for hearing, even if it is almost indistinguishable. At the other end of the scale there are few people who do not have some hearing deprivation, however small. On any estimate, therefore, the number of people we are talking about this evening is very large indeed—as the noble Lord said, about 10 million. As we are not talking about the profoundly deaf, for whom there is a lot of sympathy, let us note that we are talking about a sizeable minority of the population who do not stand out from the crowd, because, quite largely, there are so many of us that we are not noticed.
One of the things about the hard of hearing is that among their number are people with a wide range of hearing ability, a great difference of age at which their loss of hearing began, great differences in methods of communication, different attitudes towards their handicap, different intellectual capacities, personality traits and aspirations and, of course, very different sociological backgrounds. Unfortunately, society at large forgets these differences. People who have impaired hearing are regarded as just deaf, more or less. But the fact that they are real people with a wide variety of accomplishments and interests is generally forgotten, and part of the plight of the partially deaf is a vast ignorance of their problem on the part of the unthinking public.
Secondly, the plight of the partially deaf is also increased because of the lack of people trained to improve communiction between the hard of hearing and the rest of us. Some effort is made to help the hard of hearing to develop skills in lip reading and speech reading, but little effort is made to encourage the rest of us to learn how to communicate with the hard of hearing. We expect the hard of hearing to accommodate themselves to us while we make little effort to develop the necessary skills to talk to them. This is a

1159
legitimate complaint that the hard of hearing sometimes level against us.
Having said this, I believe there is need for a great increase in the number of people who are capable of teaching those who are becoming increasingly deaf to acquire skills in lip reading and speech reading. Some of those whose hearing is impaired or who have lost most of their capacity to hear acquire an expert ability to lip read or speech read, but even with such an expertise they experience severe limitations in their ability to get the full meaning of what is being said to them, as noble Lords have already pointed out. I am told that in fact in lip reading a relatively small proportion of the movements of lips and tongues are visible—probably not more than about 50 per cent. The speech reader has to rely on the context, the sense of appropriateness and even guesswork to determine what is being said. And, as has been pointed out, differences in the way in which people speak also contribute to the difficulties of speech reading. Talking too rapidly, or too slowly, or with very little movement of the lips, makes one very hard to understand.
In view of the tremendous obstacle to oral communiction, it is remarkable that so many people with hearing impairment make such sustained efforts to talk and understand what is said. We need many more people to train those with impaired hearing, and much more is needed to train the trainers. It would be ungenerous of me not to applaud what is already being set in hand in this field. In Nottinghamshire, which is the part of the country from which I come, there is in the University of Nottingham a Government-sponsored Institute of Hearing Research under Professor Haggard. The university's psychology department is also studying the psychological problems of deafness.
In our provision for further education in Nottingham there are at the moment only three full-time teachers of lip reading. Now, under the auspices of the Manpower Services Commission, there is a community enterprise project in the Bassetlawe district of Nottinghamshire which is using young people in a survey to discover how many hearing impaired people of all kinds there actually are. I mention this because in the country districts such people are very often not known to the social services, and certainly provision for helping them is less than in the big conurbations. My experience is that social workers employed by local authorities in this field are very dedicated to their work. My praise for those I know is unbounded. Most hearing impaired people nowadays have access to a social worker and, as has already been pointed out, there is an abundance of electronic aids. But despite all this there are many things still to be done, and in conclusion I should like to mention two or three of my anxieties.
First, while a lot of effort has gone into helping the physically handicapped—and quite rightly so—the hard of hearing, who come into the category of the disabled, come very low in people's priorities. While buildings are altered to accommodate wheelchairs, for instance, few buildings which have a public address system have an induction coil loop system to enable those with hearing aids to hear what is going on. All
1160
public buildings, including churches, should have this simple system installed and local authorities should be urged to give it a higher priority.
Secondly, mention has been made of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which enables local authorities to make contributions to hearing-impaired persons, but this Act has recently become virtually a dead letter because of the cutbacks in Government expenditure which mean that town halls have little money to apply to this particular cause. More money must be made available as soon as possible to help those with impaired hearing if they are not to suffer very real deprivation. Thirdly, it is vital that the Government should give real encouragement to the voluntary societies working in this field. There is one particular situation which requires swift Government action. Voluntary effort has pioneered the Council for the Advancement of Communication amongst Deaf People, a project to which, incidentally, the churches have given their full support. It is a project which I believe is expected to be attached in due course to Durham University and it has the universal support of all the voluntary societies working in this field.
The council has, however, sufficient funds to continue its work for only three months. After that its work will cease. This council seeks to train interpreters, to keep a register of interpreters, to train lip readers. And—this is the important point—in all this they are involving deaf people themselves on the council on a 50:50 basis and are using them to train and assess these communicators. I believe that about a year ago the council approached the Department of Health and Social Security for help in funding this work, but nothing has so far been done. Only about £40,000 a year is required to set up and maintain this project. That is the sort of sum of money which voluntary societies find it very difficult to raise. It will be sad if the projects which have been set up under this council all over the country are all put in jeopardy. Cannot something be done to help this imaginative initiative which the voluntary societies together have set up?
The hearing-impaired are a truly remarkable group of people. Their achievements testify that it is possible to meet the challenge of this severe handicap. To do so is, however, very far from easy. Indeed, observational and experimental research indicates that it is extremely difficult for those with this disability to adjust to their environment. The failure in the past of some individuals to adjust adequately and the prospect of certain conditions worsening in the future are evidence that we need still better understanding of the problems created by deafness, better services and facilities for solving these problems, and perhaps better acceptance of situations which cannot be changed. I hope that this debate will encourage the Government to review their attention to the plight of the partially deaf.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Harvington for having initiated this debate. I must, of course, declare a most acute interest in the particular subject we are discussing this evening. I believe that in many cases

1161
partial deafness is to some extent due to our own past faults; that we have brought it upon ourselves. All we can do now is to regret our past errors and that we have done those things that we should not have done as regards the preservation of our hearing, and endeavour to warn the youth of this country of the dangers they face unless they take good care of their God's gift of hearing. Unless we do that we are neglecting our duty as sufferers from partial deafness.
All that we can do, now that we are getting on in years, is to avoid becoming social bores with our deafness in a world of swift and precious communication. Finally, we shall have to rely, as our deafness increases as the years go on, on the affection and tolerance of our friends and our families, because we shall be living in a social world divorced from the ordinary conversational world of other people.
It is for that reason that I believe in the acute need for education of the young, so that they will realise the precious gift about which I have just spoken. Progress has been made, but not enough. Today, in the age of the aeroplane, the danger of noise is at last appreciated. In the early days of flying—it was nearly 60 years ago when I started—we did not appreciate the danger of noise. We used to climb into an aeroplane, without goggles or a flying cap, and fly around. We were carefree. We enjoyed it. If you put an engine on a broomstick in those days, we would have taken it up. The RAF today is very different. The RAF makes it a very serious offence if an aviator, pilot or crew—or indeed a mechanic attending to an aircraft on the ground—does not use the properly supplied protective ear apparatus. That is the evidence of progress we have made in one direction. We should make progress in other directions, too.
We could make progress in the area of shooting. Shooting is not done by just one class. It is done by agriculturists at every social level. We used to shoot and shoot until our partial deafness was absolutely sure. Many of us had the choice, when we went to have our ears tested, of giving up shooting, as we were advised, or to continue. I confess that I said I would continue shooting. I am probably suffering for it now, but I had an awful lot of fun while I was shooting.
There ought to be proper education about the maintenance of standards of hearing. I should like to see the National Health Service embrace regular ear testing for young folk and so give them warning if their hearing is starting to deteriorate. I believe that school lectures are required, not ramming the dangers down their throats, but occasionally bringing home to the youth of this country the dangers of the real risk in their later lives unless they take care of their hearing now.
Finally, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord the Minister. Today we have hearing aids, but as was said by another noble Lord, hearing aids intensify sound but do not analyse sound or the direction from which it comes. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell us that progress is being made in improving the selectivity of hearing aids. I hope that I may look forward to a future in which the deaf can have an aid with a switch whereby all sound except that beaming down from one particular individual will be washed out; but, by moving the
1162
switch the other way, one will be able to hear noise coming from all quarters.
I believe that this technique of sound selectivity is something that we shall see being developed in the future, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that progress is being made in this particular direction. I hope it will come about that the deaf person will be able to take part in conversation apart from the noise outside and then, when he requires, embrace all the other forms of noise. That is my hope, and I trust that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to give us some small comfort in that direction tonight.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, it was 13th May 1981 when I raised this subject in this Chamber by way of an Unstarred Question. I was declaring my interest, and in doing so I explained that I was the deafest Member of your Lordships' House. This was followed the next morning by my being tackled in the bar by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who practically challenged me to a duel for making that claim. So this evening, in declaring an interest in this subject, I will start by saying that I agree to share with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that particular honour. I should also add a declaration of interest in that I happen to be president of the West Regional Association for the Deaf, and president of the Devonshire Association of the Hard of Hearing Clubs.
When I last raised this subject two years ago, the debate was limited at that time to the various hearing aids which were available for the deaf. On that occasion we mentioned those aids which we were all hoping would get some boost, such as the television aids for the deaf; Ceefax, Oracle, and Teletext facilities. There have been other developments of great assistance, but these developments can be of use only if the Government are going to give some assistance, because they are expensive. If these aids are going to be left just for the few who can afford them, they will never achieve the object behind them. For the very deaf there is the Link, an essential telephone aid, the electronic mail via the telephone, writing on the television set, Vistel. There must be a Link for the people who have got to the furthest stage, and that is what a lot of people interested in this subject are worried about now. If you can get the Link, add that to the Vistel, the electronic mail, you have got a part of the deaf world who can communicate with their fellow beings.
The Sympathetic Hearing Scheme, to which Lord Harvington referred, is of great help, but it is not widespread. The loop has been mentioned. Before we used the loop—when I say we, I am talking about the annual general meeting of the Devonshire Association of Hard of Hearing Clubs—imagine me, as a deaf person, taking the annual general meeting; it was the fun o'Cork! Nobody knew if anyone else was talking, and if they did they did not know what he was talking about. There were people on the side doing sign languages and others doing lip reading. It was impossible. I thought, "It is no use my going along any longer". At any rate, the year before last I went along as usual to our hall in Exeter, and in came a man with this apparatus. For those who do not know, the loop is

1163
a coil which is put around the room, a little box of tricks; it is plugged in with half a dozen microphones. Then deaf people can switch their hearing aids across to the telephone. It was the first meeting that, as a result, ran smoothly. I then found out where I could get one and installed it at home. Now I can sit down by the fire in the evening, my wife can pick up one of the two microphones we have, and something gets through, instead of her having to bang her head on the floor the whole time. Life is a little more normal.
Another advantage is that one can have a switch-down attached to the television set. That enables one to adjust the sound to what is wanted without blowing ordinary people out of the room by the noise. Might I suggest that we should have that in the television room here? I think that the loop would be a much better thing in this House than the equipment we have now. These are all things that are of interest to the deaf. But what I am interested in more than anything else is that they should get down to the ordinary people, the ordinary old-age pensioners and so on, whose lives are so cut off.
With regard to lip-reading schemes, we need more lip-reading teachers. I was fortunate in having the same teacher as Jack Ashley, so I have heard a lot about what goes on, because she was one of the trainers of lip-reading teachers. Unfortunately she has now retired. Turning to sign language, I may say that we have a number of sign language teachers, but we need more in order to enable so many of the population, as there are now, to communicate and to get together, because there is a very great deal of misery in the country from loneliness caused by deafness. I am certain, from my experience, that it is only through the hard of hearing clubs, and so on, that we have saved many suicides.
Operations are now coming into effect. In Australia they have invented a bionic ear through a 2·2 million dollar Government grant. I hope the noble Lord will take the hint. In America they have had a similar device, invented by the University of California, which is used by the University College Hospital over here. Here it is funded by a private charity. I am hoping before long to have a talk with Dr. Ellis Dovek of Guy's Hospital to see if I can persuade him to extend his operation successes, again not to the totally deaf but to, so to speak, the fairly deaf.
The trouble about all these devices is that they are useful only for the low notes; and the high notes are what most of us miss and are the ones that need to be heard. Years ago I asked a doctor whether I could not have an operation for deafness. He said, "There has been one experimental one on dogs in America and it cured their deafness". I said, "So there is hope?", and he said, "Yes, but they all died of spinal meningitis". So we want to know a little more than the odd things we read in the Reader's Digest or the New Scientist. My Lords, if one is blind one is cut off from things; if deaf, one is cut off from people. We deaf people have a large chip on our shoulder apropos the blind; we feel that they have had a proportionately larger slice of the cake than we have.
Finally, I think it would help if people could realise that if they want life for deaf persons to be not too
1164
unbearable, there should be some education. I went to a mixed oldies-youngies fancy dress party about 10 years ago. All I did was put a notice round my neck saying, "Deaf, not daft". One of my sons crossed out the "not" and put "and", but that does not matter. Before he went back to school I took a young son to a barber's and left him there while I parked the car. There were two barbers, George and Bill, and as I came in my son said, "George died last week". I heard it in some other way and said, "Jolly good show!", and of course the other barber dropped the scissors down his neck. These things go on all the time. We talk too much; it is a defensive mechanism; it is so much easier for us to talk than to listen. That makes us rather unpopular. At other times we are considered rude, or else we interrupt unknowingly. I got ticked off by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, once. I turned to him and saw that his lips were not moving and said something. He gave me hell; he said, "Can't you see I am talking to so and so?". I had not seen that; I had seen that he was not talking, but he was listening.
Another trouble is that we either talk too loudly or too softly, and that depends on the hearing aid. Perhaps I may close in emphasising that point by telling your Lordships a story of the old Irish lady who was very deaf. She went to confession. Her battery was down, and she shouted her sins so loudly that the whole church heard it. The priest arranged that the next time she came she should hand in a list. So, six weeks later she handed in the list. There was a long pause and then the priest said, "But this is a shopping list". "Holy Mother!" she said, must have left my sins in Tesco's".
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I consider part of my allotted time well spent in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, because I think we have had a most useful discussion. I hope that it will eventually have some effect, although I was rather depressed to be told today that these debates are seldom taken up and used. I hope that does not prove to be so in this case and that there will be some result from it.
We seem to have had different figures given to us about the number of people affected by partial deafness, but we are all agreed that it is a very large number. My own figure is that, of those over the age of 70, 50 per cent. will be suffering some sort of hearing disability. That in itself is a frightening enough assumption. We now have 9 million pensioners. Happily many of them will live well beyond the age of 70, but it is a very sobering thought that 50 per cent. of them will need help. We have had a very fair coverage of the difficulties suffered by deaf or partially deaf people, but one that has not been mentioned, except indirectly, is the depression which is a very real part of being deaf or partially deaf. I understand that this applies to all age groups and social classes. Depression is a very real and tangible effect.
I want to come to all that is left to me after the excellent speeches made so far: that is, some practical suggestions about what we can do to help deaf people generally. If there is nothing wrong with one's eyes one can go to an optician, and there is an optician in almost every high street. Why can we not have some sort of hearing aid centre, or a centre for not just

1165
hearing aids but environmental aids as well? If a person needs help with his hearing he can go to the hospital, but the hospital only deals with hearing aids. It does not deal with environmental aids. Quite often a hearing aid is dished out to someone who, in fact, only needs a television amplifier, a flashing door bell or some other much less expensive and much less difficult to follow-up means of being helped. So why can we not have these centres? I remind your Lordships that the cost of hearing aids came down dramatically when the National Health Service did some bulk buying. Why can we not have bulk buying of these other aids, which would bring the cost down not only to the National Health Service but also to the private sector? There would be benefits all round.
The area of training technicians has been well covered but I highlight one reason why we need more technicians and more investigation. It has been discovered in research that the very old do not take kindly to being fitted with hearing aids. However, if people with a disability at its early stages get help and are fitted with aids they will continue to use them and will upgrade them as necessary right into their old age. Therefore, it is very important that people should be attended to, not necessarily in their youth because one hopes they will not need it, but in their 50s and 60s when these disabilities begin. They should establish the habit of wearing hearing aids, getting attention and not being self-conscious about it. We need much more ease of approach for those with hearing difficulties and we need many more technicians, not only to attend to them in the first place but to follow them up afterwards and make sure that the aids they have been given are properly used and not just discarded.
We underestimate other aspects of being deaf and perhaps I can mention them because it does not hurt for those of us who can still hear quite well to be aware of them. I refer to the danger to people when they cannot hear. Alarm bells cannot be heard. Traffic horns cannot be heard. All kinds of difficulties at work arise; workers are unable to hear changes in the machinery note which would be a warning to those who can hear but is not heard by those with hearing difficulties. We should bear those difficulties in mind and press the National Health Service, or employers, to make sure that visual aids are available as well as warning sounds.
Finally, what is mostly needed is somebody, or something, to co-ordinate these efforts because at the moment they are fragmented. In 1981 ACSHIP existed—the Advisory Committee on Services for Hearing Impaired People. This, for reasons which I have not discovered, was disbanded in 1981. Perhaps ACSHIP was not the best thing that could have been done, but something like it is still needed, if only to make sure that the money that is available in the health service and elsewhere is properly spent. The Government would do well to consider replacing that body, or setting it up again if that is the best thing, but certainly give someone the responsibility for co-ordinating the services for the deaf.
At the beginning of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, said that our civilisation depended on communication, and so it does. If we are to cut off about 10 or 20 per cent. of our population from that civilisation, then we are failing in our duty and I think
1166
that, if nothing else, this House has done well to draw attention to that.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate because I am chairman of a new organisation called Cued Speech and, like the right reverend Prelate, I am in desperate need of money to keep it going. It is the newest method from America and it is working very well, having been going for two or three years, but we are existing from month to month. I did even more than the right reverend Prelate about seeing the Minister from another place. I even had him to lunch, but unfortunately that was wasted money because we have heard nothing, and that was nearly a year ago.
One of the difficulties is that most people are kind to disabled people but deaf people look perfectly splendid. One does not realise that they have anything wrong with them at all. That is one of the difficulties. If people do see a hearing aid they are perhaps shy of going up to speak because they do not know how to tackle it. Fortunately, I am not shy and I have been well trained by my noble friend on the Front Bench to speak up and to take an interest.
One is apt to think, as has been found in this debate, that most deaf people are rather elderly. As a matter of fact there are over 2,000 schoolchildren who are partially deaf. They are the children we must think about for the future. About 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. of the 10,000 children who have already been tested have hearing defects and they therefore need special education, but there is not enough special education or trained teachers to do this.
The statistics also show that there are educational, social and emotional problems with these children that are of very deep significance. Of these children, 95 per cent. could be properly trained if they had the opportunity of having further education. But they do not. Only 23 per cent. get further education after the age of 16. It is also considered that communications between schools and the outside organisations are very poor. The agencies that could help these young people to get jobs are not tackled.
The Rowson Report on deafness to the DHSS referred to a departmental inquiry into promotion and research. I am afraid that very little promotion and research is going on in a big way. It is very badly needed. I hope that noble Lords in their areas will press for this and will also continue to press the Minister. I think that it is one of the bad spots in our education at the moment of partially deaf children.
For the younger ones, for babies shortly after they are born, there are some instruments: boxes with little cradles in the middle. I have been to Hillington Hospital to see these. I think that there are only three of these in the country at the present time. They are for babies of a week old or more. Two little pegs can be put in their ears. If the baby flinches at all, you know that it is all right; if it does not flinch, you know that it needs its ears attending to. This can be done straight away when the baby is about one week old. I have watched the babies; they do not mind a bit. It does not worry them. They do not cry.

1167
Children with average hearing loss (that is, of less than 65 decibels) have a very poor reading attitude. Children aged 16 have a reading ability of only an eight to 10 year-old. I agree with noble Lords that television is a great asset. In the West Country they have a little box for the old fashioned fingering. I want to get away from the old fashioned fingering and get new methods into teaching the deaf. Some of them are protesting. I have little battles with them. Some of these methods have been used in this field for over 100 years, but I do think that it is now time that we had new methods. The method that I am interested in is cued speech. I have had several demonstrations here to show noble Lords and other Members who are interested. It is easy to learn. The French have taken it up in a big way and even the Indians in Bombay have a very good school for this.
It is excellent that we are really thinking of something. This, regrettably, is done in America. It is regrettable from our point of view. They can get the money to carry it out. They do not have perhaps so many old institutions and they are very much keener than we are on this. There are to be—and I have seen them on videotape—spectacles which at the moment cost 850 dollars a pair. People will be able to read speech through their eyes. They would take a long time to explain, and I have not got many minutes, but there are little boxes on either side and little tapes and wires going up either side of the nose to the glasses. They reflect the speech of the person. They will be absolutely excellent. I only wish that I had a pair here. At the moment I cannot afford to buy a pair and, indeed, there are only the three or four pairs going. I hope to show the videotape again when we have our annual meeting here in about two or three months' time. I hope that anybody interested in this will come to see it.
In regard to the question of the cost for television, I gather that the difficulty is that it would cost over £1 million to do what people want. They say that it would need £400,000 to pay the people to work it: the engineers, clerks, et cetera. That does not seem a great deal when it could give enormous pleasure not only to the deaf people but to others who could look at the television at the same time. If it is worked out properly, you would not have to have two televisions. I hope that today we shall consider new methods and interest more people in the deaf.
I can tell what I think is a rather sad story, in a way. I belong to the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind. We get over £1 million a year through the voluntary organisation. We started one for the deaf and we had to close it down because we could not get enough money to keep it going. People are not sympathetic to the deaf, not because they do not wish to be, but there is nothing to show them the need. This is the trouble, I think. I hope that today's debate will highlight the great importance of this. As one or two people have said already, there will be many more deaf people later on, especially if they go on playing in those very noisy dance bands. Some of them are already having trouble with their ears, which is another point we have to remember.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Harvington for introducing this debate. I am looking
1168
forward to talking to him nicely over the week-end in Jersey, as he is coming to a conference that I am having there. I should now like to ask the Minister whether he can give us a very favourable reply indeed.
7.44 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for introducing this debate today. It is time that this subject was ventilated, because, as others have already said, deafness, partial deafness or some loss of hearing is likely to afflict most of us sooner or later. There are many and various ways in which the hard of hearing can be helped today. The British Association for the Hard of Hearing is a registered charity. Through a network of 220 local clubs, social, eduational and community activities are organised and ideas, experiences and information are exchanged.
It is self-evident that people who have problems with hearing cannot read other people's minds, but with training and help they can read lips, and this or anything else which helps communication is obviously a help. It not only aids in overcoming a feeling of isolation—being cut off from their fellow human beings—but also helps in getting to know people. Mr. Peckford, who was senior social worker for the deaf in North Yorkshire, has said about lip-reading, and I quote:
"It seems to work for some people. It doesn't really matter what can be proven technically about a person's lip-reading ability before and after a set period of instruction. What's really important is the way an individual feels about it; if he feels he now has the confidence to enter into a conversation which previously he would have gone to considerable lengths to avoid".
Surely, this is important. Lip-reading tuition has long been recognised as an important part of rehabilitation for people who have become deaf in adult life. In many areas lip-reading classes are charged for at the LEA class rates: surely they should be free for these disabled people. They may not be so obviously at a disadvantage, such as the blind with a white stick or a guide dog, or those unfortunate enough to be in a wheelchair, but they can be in just as great a danger from traffic, to take one example.
In North Yorkshire, where I live, lip-reading with adult education classes is free, as it is regarded as rehabilitation rather than further education. They also have two social workers especially trained, who give signing classes, and they find that there is a growing demand for these classes. They go wherever they are needed, not only to community centres; they also visit families at home if the facilities are suitable, especially those with profoundly deaf children. They find that for the family continually trying to communicate with a deaf child is a great strain, but there is a desperate need for them to do so if the child is not to feel cut off and unloved, and this for a family is a very real disability. North Yorkshire social services find themselves in the unusual situation of needing two more social workers who have the additional training in communication skills. They have the money for one more, but cannot find even one with these special skills. I wonder whether the Minister can help.
Current research has shown that as many as one person in five may have a significant hearing loss in one ear. One of the causes, among others, is excessive noise. Gone are the days, on the whole, of commuters

1169
having to put up with transistor radios. In their place are stereo headphones. For as little as £10 the young can plug into a portable boogie box, as I understand they are called, and enter their own private world of harsh noise. Peaceful as the world may be for those such as parents who no longer have to put up with the noise, there is great hidden danger for the young person who uses these headphones.
There is evidence coming to light that the continuous high-level noise blasting straight into the ear can cause permanent damage to a person listening for a long time. Would the Government consider having a warning put on the advertisements for the sale of these headsets of the danger of possible future impairment of hearing for those who use them, such as the health warning they now have on packets of cigarettes? Not only can the noise cause impairment; it can just as much cause death if a young person crossing a road does not hear the ordinary traffic sounds. That also applies to those riding bicycles who wear them.
One area in which great advances have been made is the sub-titling of films by the television authorities. The All-Party Disablement Group, of which I am a member, were given details of the development plans for the sub-titling of programmes by the BBC, but only viewers with television sets capable of receiving Teletext can obtain these sub-titles. It was hoped that by the end of a five-year expansion programme the BBC would be sub-titling all pre-recorded programmes broadcast at peak hours on BBC 1 and BBC 2. They also hope to experiment with sub-titling football matches and other public events with the use of live interpreters as well as what is called palantype. I think the BBC are to be congratulated and this must be of great encouragement not only to the hard of hearing but to all of those who either teach or are involved in any way with the hard of hearing.
On Sunday night we had a very touching broadcast from Mr. Terry Scott; I trust that many saw it on BBC 1 at 6.35 p.m. He said, however, that a Teletext set cost £50 more a year to rent than ordinary television sets. In the discussion with the All-Party Disablement Group, which I have already mentioned, we were given to understand that it was only about £30. I wonder whether the Minister who is to reply could enlighten us on which is the more accurate statement. Perhaps the difference is between the hire of a colour television and a black and white one. I am sure that he will readily understand that the difference between £30 and £50 means a lot to pensioners and others on small incomes in that one is nearly double the other. Once again I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I, too, would like to express my very grateful thanks, as I am sure the whole House does, to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for introducing this debate. He has been rather quiet lately, but I remember him as a very excellent Chairman of Ways and Means in another place. Perhaps he might give the Government some financial advice on finding the ways and means to provide some of the things that people have been asking for in this debate tonight.
1170
This is an important issue and it concerns a handicap which is not often discussed. There are many people suffering from deafness who are too embarrassed to admit it and consequently they are not receiving proper treatment. Mention has been made of discos. I am not a disco fan, but I think that some of the excessive noises in discos present a considerable danger to people's hearing. Some years ago in Sierra Leone we were given a farewell reception by the parliamentary people and that reception included a very loud band called the "Guinea Girls" from New Guinea. The ceiling was low and, frankly, apart from my ears being affected I felt my chest going in and out with the pressure of noise. I think that excessive noise is a considerable social danger as far as hearing is concerned.
I come to the point which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, who is obviously involved with some of these very highly technical new developments. This subject was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I am referring to the very important question of checking deafness at an early age. The Department of Health and Social Security, as the Minister indicated when he almost interrupted the noble Baroness, has a number of auditory response cradles on test at one or two NHS hospitals. I understand that the screening by this method began in 1978. It is, indeed, a revolutionary development in testing the hearing ability of a very young baby. Detection of any defect in hearing ability at an early age is of prime importance for the child's future care and education as well as of help to the parents, removing often extreme anxiety. The equipment is not too costly, and the Minister will probably confirm that it costs about £8,000 per piece of equipment. Compared to the beneficial results which can be achieved, it is money well spent. I wonder whether the Minister can give the House any further information on this project? How is it going on? Has the department approved it and, if so, although expenditure control is, I know, a problem, is it possible in any case that voluntary organisations such as hospital friends (with which I am very much involved) could assist in the provision of such equipment? Such a facility can be of vital importance.
I turn next to the older deaf children. So far as schoolchildren are concerned, even slight deafness can affect a child's ability to absorb a teacher's work. Teachers in the main are very alert in detecting signs of handicap such as deafness, partial or otherwise, and refer the child to the school doctor and thence on to the family GP for possible further treatment. In this field, however, a very serious problem arises when the child is found to be in need of training at a special school for the deaf. I understand that it is becoming a real problem to find places for children in such special schools due to economy measures and for other reasons. Unfortunately, I must admit that this is not a new problem, but it is one that must be handled with a sense of urgency. Special schools can achieve remarkable results and it would be a pity if such valuable work were undermined because of mere financial considerations.
I now come to the general problems of the partially deaf. In this connection I am raising points which have been submitted to me by a lady who is partially

1171
deaf—the very charming wife of my noble friend Lord Underhill. Lady Underhill has given me a number of points which she thinks I ought to raise—and who am I to say no? For those equipped with a deaf aid living in outlying areas some distance away from a hospital, there is a need for easier facilities for maintenance and other problems associated with the aid. On the whole our postal service is good, but to use it is not always convenient, especially if the deaf aid has to be surrendered for repair. I realise that it is a question of expense, but in fact every patient should have a spare aid, particularly in the circumstances I have just mentioned, but also in case a fault arises. People regularly wearing spectacles normally have their previous pair readily available and it is wise to make sure that they are readily available or indulge in a spare pair. But normally this is not the case with a deaf aid.
So what is the position? Is it possible for spare aids to be made available particularly for those people who have to travel and be away from home from time to time? There is also the need for uniformity in aid design—that is, on/off switches and volume control switches should always be in the same positions. My informant complains about the "Madescro" aid which is worn on clothing. It is claimed that this type of aid should be scrapped or issued only on request. It is also claimed that they are socially unacceptable, especially to sensitive people. Every body or clothing movement is amplified, reacting noisily to certain materials more than others. Has the department received any similar complaints? Another complaint is about the need for an ear mould that fixes more easily. Some aged or somewhat infirm people find it difficult to know how to insert it and this sort of confusion detracts from the benefit of an aid, as well as causing worry and frustration.
I now move away from the complaints submitted to me, and I should like to make some general points, many of which have already been mentioned. For example, there is the loop system which is vitally important and which is now being installed in quite a number of theatres, especially new civic theatres. This, of course, is a tremendous advance. But deaf aids are only part of the story, particularly for the person living alone or alone for part of the day. There has been mention of door bells and the need for a flashing device. Some people have them. Then there is the alarm clock problem and, again, the need for a flashing device or a vibratory system. Telephones are another hazard unless assisted by amplified hand sets, extra earpieces, extra bells, or today even visual telephones. Mention has been made of Teletext, which is proving a great boon to the deaf.
All this and other things must mean additional expense to obtain a reasonable everyday life for a deaf person, an expense which a great many are unable to afford. I must admit that many items are zero rated for VAT purposes and in some cases are free of VAT. But even so the question of expense remains. I should like to ask—and I am almost putting forward a begging bowl—whether there is any way in which assistance can be given on the financial side to help those people who are unable to afford some of these vital and necessary additional aids. Also, is it possible that such
1172
expense can qualify for tax relief, of course where a person is in a tax-paying position? Indeed, perhaps the end solution is a comprehensive handicap allowance.
Returning to the general subject of deaf aids, can the Minister say what is the present supply position and what measures are being taken to overcome any shortfall in supply? In the National Health Service there always seems to have been a supply shortage of deaf aids. I agree that some people can secure their own aids privately, but, private or public supply, no one with hearing problems should attempt to obtain an aid without previous medical tests or advice. I say this because I have always maintained it as regards spectacles and it also applies to deaf aids, because in the testing some other physical defect might be revealed. The choice of National Health Service or private is one for the individual, but it would be unwise, as with eyesight, as I have already said, to go ahead without medical advice or examination.
Finally—and I am anxious to give the Minister ample time for reply because I have a hint that he might have some goodies for us; I hope so—as with many other forms of disability, voluntary organisations play a vital part in service to the deaf. Nationally we have four main bodies generally known as the Panel of Four, all doing excellent work. Apart from these there are many other local organisations; and, like the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, I should like to pay particular tribute to the British Association of the Hard of Hearing, run, as it is, by deaf people for themselves. Its admirable efforts in providing clubs and so on are to be welcomed and supported.
However, I am not sure what system of co-ordination exists between the DHSS and these bodies, if any. But there should be the closest possible link-up to assist not only those unfortunate people whose hearing is impaired, but also to educate and advise the fortunate majority of the general public on how they can deal with communication with the deaf and the social problems which necessarily exist today mainly due to ignorance and lack of understanding. Once again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for raising this very vital subject—and it is about time.
8.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, although there is a good deal of time left, I understand that it is the convention that even so the Minister does not try to speak for the 40-odd minutes or so that are left. I have a good deal of material in front of me and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me if I go at a fair pace. Any point that I fail to take up now, I shall naturally try to deal with by correspondence at a later date.
I should like to begin by adding my thanks to those of the rest of your Lordships to my noble friend Lord Harvington for initiating this important debate on the plight of the partially deaf. It is difficult to get to grips with the problems of those whose hearing is impaired because they are by no means a homogeneous group. Hearing impairment, however serious, is an invisible handicap and does not often attract a great deal of sympathy from the general public. If this applies, as it does, to those people who are unfortunate enough to

1173
be born profoundly deaf, with all the difficulties they face through never having heard the human voice, it certainly applies to those who—late in life perhaps—lose their hearing to a greater or lesser extent.
To understand their difficulties requires an effort of sympathy and imagination which those of us who are more fortunate often seem unwilling to make. We are uncertain what to do when we meet someone whose hearing is impaired. We want, I hope, to do the right thing and to smooth the way as best we can, but we lack knowledge of the problem and we need guidance as to the best approach to make. But when we consider the difficulties of those whose hearing is impaired, the loneliness and sense of isolation which some elderly people in particular suffer, we must do something about their plight. If they cannot even hear a knock at the door, if they are unwilling even to seek help—and this is not rare—then we in the hearing world have a duty to do as much as we can to improve their quality of life and break down their social isolation.
I have indicated that there is a lack of public understanding of the problems and needs of partially deaf people. A survey conducted by the OPCS for the Department of Health and published in 1981 found that the general public were sensitive to the needs of deaf people, but they did not know how to deal with them and did not know how to communicate with them. For example, this communication barrier creates a particularly distressing obstacle in public places, where failure to hear an announcement over a loudspeaker or public address system can have serious consequences. The public need to know more about what it means to be deaf and how they can provide positive help in day-to-day contacts with deaf people. Sometimes all that is needed is a little time, patience and effort, but it also needs to be said that hearing-impaired people will often not admit to having a handicap and do not seek help.
As in so many aspects of social welfare, the voluntary organisations have shown the way in the field of hearing impairment. As a Government, we are determined to foster and support a strong and progressive voluntary movement, for the charities can often do what statutory organisations cannot. Great praise for their efforts over many years is due to both local and national organisations helping deaf people. Not surprisingly, given the fact that deaf people are, as I have said, not a homogeneous group, there are several organisations in this field, and they can be most effective, especially when they combine their efforts to mount projects which are of help to all deaf and hearing-impaired people. My honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled meets the four national organisations who comprise the so-called Panel of Four formally every year and there is constant contact between them and the various Government departments which are concerned with aspects of the problem of deafness.
The Panel of Four comprises the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the British Association of the Hard of Hearing, the National Deaf Children's Society and the British Deaf Association. A shining example of the way in which they have worked together recently is the Sympathetic Hearing Scheme referred to by more than one noble Lord. This aims to make
1174
everyday activities like shopping simpler for everyone with hearing difficulties.
The scheme uses the "ear" symbol, which looks like this and which has been adopted by organisations for the deaf throughout the world. It is displayed wherever people with hearing difficulties can get special service. British Telecom have been putting it in telephone kiosks, where it indicates that the hand-set is fitted with an induction coil for hearing aid wearers. Shop owners display the symbol to show that they are prepared to help and encourage deaf and hard of hearing people to use their shop. Plastic cards displaying the symbol have been produced for people whose hearing is impaired. Members of the public are asked, when shown one, to give the holder a fair and sympathetic hearing. On the back of the cards are the basic appeals:
"Please speak clearly and not too quickly.
Turn towards the light and face me.
Cut out as much background noise as possible.
Don't be afraid to write things down."
The Sympathetic Hearing Scheme was promoted and financed jointly by my department and the Panel of Four. It was launched in 1982 by my honourable friend Mr. Rossi, and the department initially provided £20,000 towards the scheme. The purpose is to increase public awareness of the problems and needs of people with impaired hearing, and the scheme has had a successful start. For example, it has been taken up as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme for the community service element of the Silver Medal.
The Panel of Four are now again combining to give a greater impetus to the scheme and are seeking more support from sponsors in order to advertise and develop it further. They have appealed once again to the department for financial help and I am pleased to announce here tonight that my honourable friend has decided to award a further grant totalling £200,000. This substantially increased sum is being given in the light of the initial success of the scheme. We are confident that the scheme will go a long way to help those who are hard of hearing and enable the general public to know how to help them in a useful and friendly way.
My noble friend Lord Harvington in his opening remarks suggested that the Government should introduce a special code for communicating with deaf people. I have already referred to the code which appears on the back of the Sympathetic Hearing Scheme card. This covers many of the points to which my noble friend referred. I feel that it might be as well to wait until we see how successful this has been before deciding whether the Government might introduce something further.
One of the most effective ways of helping is the provision of a hearing aid. Your Lordships will share my pleasure that in recent years it has been possible to improve considerably the range of hearing aids available under the National Health Service. No longer are people restricted to the old body-worn aid, although for those who prefer it and those for whom it is most suitable, this is still available. Now one can obtain, free of charge, the small and powerful models which are worn discreetly behind the ear. The range of hearing aids generally available under the National

1175
Health Service now meets the needs of all but a very few patients, and for these, local health authorities have the power to purchase a special model. I have to agree, however, that hearing aids are not selective enough. One or two noble Lords referred to these difficulties. But we need to know more about the fundamental mechanisms of the impaired ear before the opportunities offered by modern micro-electronics can be utilised.
There is, however, still need for improvement, as I have said. I myself have been very much aware of the inadequacies of present generation hearing aids as used by small children in particular, and I have myself asked the Medical Research Council to consider them in particular in the context of its forthcoming work on design requirements for hearing aids. But in this country we can now say with pride that we have a comprehensive hearing aid service for everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to the provision of hearing aids on a private basis, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to that too. But, as I said earlier, local health authorities are empowered to buy whatever special hearing aid may be necessary and available, without necessarily having to draw upon one of the aids more generally available through the National Health Service.
Of course, improving the range of hearing aids available under the NHS is important, but it is important too that patients should be enabled to make the best use of their aids, and that those who have special difficulties in adjusting to their impairment should be given further help. Recognising the importance of follow-up care, my department has provided central funds in order to set up the new profession of hearing therapists. They are mainly concerned with the rehabilitation of adults suffering from acquired deafness. There are now nearly 30 in post in England and a further ten commenced training in September 1982. This was particularly on the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he was speaking earlier.
The hearing therapists' scheme has been a pilot scheme which is now being examined to see how effective both the training and the service provided are. Once we have received the results of the research we shall decide whether, and how, the scheme should be extended. But no matter what the extent of hearing loss, it is vitally important to discover it as soon as possible. The department emphasises the need to screen children at an early age so that action can be taken quickly to diagnose, assess and treat any child in whom a hearing loss is suspected. Screening of children at 8 months, 3 years and at school entry is continuing. Its effectiveness is being examined, especially that done by health visitors. I can assure your Lordships that training in such screening is given to health visitors. We are examining this in training to ensure that the highest standards are maintained. That too was on the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
Auditory screening tests on tiny babies are difficult to perform and are not always effective. Now I come to the interest of my noble friend Lady Vickers. Recently, however, there has been a most interesting development in this field, and my noble friend referred
1176
to it during her speech. With the help of Government funds a device has been developed which can test the hearing of newly-born babies. That is called the Linco-Bennet Auditory Response Cradle, which uses a computer to analyse the baby's response to sounds delivered automatically. The cradle provides an objective test. It should improve coverage, since testing would be conducted in the maternity unit before the mother returns home with her baby.
I visited a hospital recently where research is being carried out on the cradle—and I think my noble friend said that she had been there too—and I was able to announce on the occasion of my visit that the Government are purchasing eight more cradles to enable the evaluation programme to be speeded up. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether even greater acquisition of cradles could not be moved forward. We are still in the stage of evaluating this cradle and it might be wrong to encourage leagues of friends, for example, to acquire great numbers of these devices before the evaluation is complete. However, I should say that the initial results of the evaluation are very encouraging indeed.
One of the most important issues affecting hearing-impaired children is their education, and I must say something about this. Education is central to their development and has a great bearing on the kind and quality of life they will lead as adults. With the implementation of the 1981 Education Act on 1st April the educational category "partially hearing" will disappear, together with the other nine statutory categories of handicap into which children needing special educational treatment are currently divided. The Act, of course, follows the concept recommended by the Warnock Committee of making, where necessary, a multi-professional assessment of the child's educational needs as a whole rather than concentrating on his specific disability.
The Act, as a Bill, was given considerable time in your Lordships' House, and I shall not, therefore, dwell on the benefits which it will bring to all children with special needs. Under its provisions the hearing-impaired child will be educated in ordinary schools with his hearing contemporaries where that is the right thing to do in his particular case. But special schools, or units, equipped to deal with the hearing-impaired, will continue to be available for those children who need them. The disappearance of the "partially hearing" label opens the way to a broad, more flexible approach to educating these children. It does not imply in any sense a less clear recognition of their need for help or any impoverishment of the provision we are making for them.
For children suffering from any significant loss of hearing early identification is critical, and the sooner intervention and education begins the greater will be the likelihood of positive and lasting benefit. The Act opens the way for educational arrangements to be made without delay wherever they are required. It also requires health authorities to inform local education authorities of children under five who come to their notice and who seem to have special educational needs, thereby providing a framework within which early identification and action are encouraged.

1177
My Lords, may I just turn now to a few of the points made during the course of the debate this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his speech referred to the delays at hearing-aid centres. Temporary factors have indeed created some difficulties for hearing-aid services throughout the country, and where there have been additional local problems the backlog of work in some cases has become rather large. Part of the problem has been the shortage of trained staff to take audiological measurements and to fit hearing aids. However, of greater importance has been the extension of the range of aids available through the centres, especially the higher power models, which has created additional demand. I am informed that these problems are past their peaks, and it is now agreed that steady improvement can be achieved in the health authorities concerned. The Government prefer to leave it to the health authorities to manage their resources according to local needs and priorities.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Winstanley, referred to the occupational deafness scheme. Occupational deafness was first included in the schedule of prescribed industrial diseases in 1974, but cover was, however, limited to certain very noisy occupations mainly in the shipbuilding and metal-working industries, and to people who were substantially disabled by deafness.
More recently, in November 1982, a further report by the council concluded that, although some constraints will have to be maintained, there is scope for widening the range of occupations still further and easing the restrictions imposed by the 20 years' and 12 months' rule. The council has therefore recommended that occupational coverage should be extended to include work with high-speed woodworking machinery and with chain saws, and people working in the immediate vicinity of most prescribed processes. The council has also recommended that the 20 years' rule should be reduced to a minimum requirement of 10 years' employment in one or more prescribed occupations, and that claims should be permitted up to five years after leaving any prescribed occupation, instead of 12 months, as at present. Those recommendations are all under consideration. I am afraid that I cannot tonight announce any Government decision on them, but I hope that an announcement will be possible before long.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked me about the Advisory Committee on Services for Hearing Impaired People. The Advisory Committee—ACSHIP, as it is called—was set up in 1974 to advise the Secretary of State for Social Services on aspects of health and personal social services for the hearing impaired. It did not address itself to technical aspects of hearing aids or audiological equipment, which were the subject of separate advisory committees—one called the Advisory Committee on Audiological Equipment. ACSHIP set up five committees, which reported on specific topics and produced recommendations for the statutory authorities and for practitioners. ACSHIP was wound up in 1980, when it had completed its final report on services for hearing impaired children. Ministers now receive advice from medical and other professional advisers within the department, who keep in contact with professionals in the field, including service members of ACSHIP.
1178
Several noble Lords mentioned aids such as visual doorbells, inductive loops, and similar gadgets. These are listed and described in a report produced by my department, and perhaps I may place a copy of the report in the Library of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lady Vickers referred to research into hearing impairment. On the subject of research, let me first say that I was very heartened to learn that a recent survey of research projects in the United Kingdom relating to hearing and speech and their disorders, identified no fewer than 395 separate projects current in 1982. This is a very encouraging level of research activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked in particular about research into prevention of hearing disability and preservation of hearing. Much hearing loss is of course the consequence of ageing, but work continues on studying identifiable causes of deafness, with a view to their elimination. Several noble Lords referred to the difficulties in discos, and I should not be surprised if in the fullness of time that noise turns out to be a cause of deafness in later life.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked me about the difference between prices for ordinary and Teletext television sets. I am sorry that I do not have in front of me information about that, but perhaps I may look into it and write to the noble Lady.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred to the possibility of supplying spare hearing aids to hearing impaired people. These are made available in a very limited category of cases—for example, to those people with additional visual handicaps—but it would be extraordinarily expensive to extend that provision to people using hearing aids generally, and I fear that I cannot give an undertaking that we can offer any real prospect of doing that.
Time marches on. I do not think that I have spoken for quite so long as the board indicates, but I hope that what I have said will serve to underline the Government's concern for the plight of those whom we have been discussing this evening. Much has been done to ease their problems by both statutory and voluntary services, but I am sure that more could be done to improve their quality of life still further. However, I hope that the points that I have sought to make tonight, not least the announcement that I was able to make just now, will serve to convince your Lordships that the present Government—indeed, like their predecessors—care for these people and are making important and improved provision for their welfare.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I think that it would be the wish of your Lordships if I were to express your feelings on the debate that we have had—it has been most interesting—as well as our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for dealing so fully with the points we have made. But perhaps above all I should thank him for hard cash, because it is not very often that a debate such as this ever results in any Government announcing hard cash. Although I have been in one or other of these places for 45 years, I have never before seen it happen quite like that. So, on behalf of us all, I thank the noble Lord, and following upon that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Criminal Trespass on Residential Premises Bill [H.L.]
8.25 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. For several centuries notices have been placed outside private buildings threatening, with gay abandon, to prosecute trespassers. All lawyers, but not always the general public, knew that that was all bluff. Trespass is a civil tort, and damage has to be proved. Sometimes it is possible to obtain injunctions against individuals to stop a trespass, but it is not possible for them to be fined or imprisoned for behaving in the kind of anti-social way that Mr. Fagan adopted last year. The self-same Mr. Fagan blew the gaff: he showed to all and sundry who read the press or watched television that even the most undesirable form of trespass can be committed with impunity.
Article 601 of the California Penal Code—the penal code of another common law country, and a country which in some ways has much stronger traditions of constitutional protection of the individual than do we—states:
"… a Trespasser entering or occupying property or structures without the consent of the owner, his agent or person in lawful possession thereof shall be guilty of an offence".
Article 601.5 goes further. It states:
"…anyone who enters or remains in any non-commercial dwelling house or apartment or other such place without consent"—
et cetera—
"shall be guilty of an offence".
I am certainly not advocating the breadth of the Californian law, even though California has not experienced the difficulties postulated by the Home Office consultation paper, to which I shall refer later.
I want to emphasise that my Bill applies only to private residences or private rooms in other dwellings. It does not apply to agricultural land, industrial, or business premises. It is designed to close what is, after all, only a very narrow gap in the law. I think that it is important to show why my Bill is necessary. To do so, I give two examples of really very unpleasant behaviour in my own neighbourhood, and I believe such behaviour to be not uncommon elsewhere. A man, well known to the police, prowls around and looks for an open window, through which he climbs, without using force. He enters a bedroom and by just standing there wakes up the woman or couple. Needless to say, all hell then breaks loose. The intruder flees; the police are called, and invariably he is ambushed on the way home. He immediately admits what he has done, but so far he has not been convicted, as in law all that he has done is to trespass, however undesirably.
The village where I live would, by some people, be called an outer metropolitan suburb. In one of its small housing estates, peopled by executives and professionals, a trespasser has been visiting. The houses are of a type which could be appropriately let to foreign diplomats. The reason that I refer to foreign diplomats is that simple trespass on the premises of foreign embassies is already an offence under Section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Therefore think, my Lords, of the feelings of those executives or other
1180
people if, after he has pranced through their houses, the trespasser is prosecuted for simple trespass in the garden of their putative foreign neighbour. I would suggest that there their sentiments of outrage and sense of injustice would be totally understandable.
This morning I had a meeting with a very senior Surrey police officer, in order to ask him what would be the views of his police force. I believe that his views are of interest to your Lordships and, with his consent I shall pass them on to you. He feels that the Bill would be useful for the following reasons. Firstly, in the first of the cases I mentioned—in other words, that of the prowler who goes into the bedroom—the public feel that the intruder has committed, or ought to have committed, a criminal offence. Thus, when the police are found to be powerless it harms the police/public relations. The second reason is an even better one. It is that, if a potential thief climbs through the window of a house without breaking or entering, and is disturbed or found before he has stolen anything and if he has no outward evidence such as tools to commit a burglary (or whatever may be the technical term when an offence is committed), he may say, "All I was doing was curiously trespassing and looking around". Now it is known much more widely, as I said earlier, that trespass is not a criminal offence, and that man will get off.
He will either get off or, what is much more dangerous, a police officer knowing that the man is a criminal (because he could know these things) may be tempted to bend the law and the evidence. If it is a simple case for this sort of person to be convicted of an offence, then I would suggest it makes the law clearer and it removes a temptation which we would not like to be there.
When my noble friend Lord Elton made a statement on Royal security in this House last July, the need to legislate was put to him by my noble friend Lord Renton and by me, and probably also by other noble Lords. My noble friend and I even tried to amend the Criminal Justice Bill, which was then going through Parliament. Unfortunately, we were told that our amendment was outside the Long Title. Since this Bill has been announced, I have had a certain amount of correspondence and a certain amount of press comment which has been very favourable. In August, my noble friend Lord Renton and I discussed the matter and he sent to the Ministers concerned a simple draft Bill which would have treated trespass in people's homes in the same way as Section 9 of the 1977 Act treats trespass in foreign embassies.
On October 14th, Mr. Mayhew wrote saying that the Government's own review of the law was not quite complete, and we were asked to have patience. As there was no mention of it in the gracious Speech, we saw him on 15th November to stress the urgency, in our view, of legislative action. We were again asked to be patient pending the issue of the consultation document. Again, being good, loyal Conservatives, we did exactly as our Minister asked us. Meanwhile, in December, a summary of 474 of the Conservative's Party's discussion groups on "Crime and the Community" stated:
"Quite a number of groups was horrified to learn that entering homes uninvited was not considered an offence as such and said that the law should be changed".

1181
The Home Office consultative document, published eventually at the beginning of February, acknowledges public concern in its opening pages and most specifically in paragraph 16, which says:
"the ordinary citizen who finds an intruder in his home would rather involve invoke the protection of the Criminal Law and the assistance of the police than involve himself in a physical struggle or litigation".
That is an observation of the utmost common sense and reasonableness. The document sets out the present state of the law where it applies entry into people's homes, together with options and difficulties to which I will refer later. The document asks for comments by 3rd May and these, I presume, will be from such bodies as the Magistrates' Association, the chief constables, the National Council for Civil Liberties and other interested parties, as well as the general public.
Why then, my Lords, do I move the Second Reading of this Bill today? The answer is twofold. First, it is inconceivable that the consultation process should be completed without hearing your Lordships' views; and this Bill provides an opportunity. Secondly, if the Bill is acceptable in principle to your Lordships, to the Government and to the rest of us, we should have until Committee stage (I hope as soon after 3rd May as reasonable) to consider any improvements in detail or in drafting which the Government consider necessary in the light of the debate or any comments received meanwhile by the Home Office. Therefore nothing will be lost and much could be gained by the introductin of this Bill. If we get it right in this House, it would not need much encouragement from the Government or much time for it to pass quickly through another place. Sometimes that happens.
I now turn to the Bill. It has the merit of being short, in plain English, containing no cross-references to previous legislation. The method used in it is to take Section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and apply it to residential premises, adding a requirement that the prosecution must prove that trespass caused, or was likely to cause, "fear, distress, harrassment or serious annoyance", to anyone in lawful occupation of residential premises. It is the qualification part of that clause which is so important. This is the very filter which meshes out the small boys and the cricket balls, et cetera, to which the consultation document refers. It filters out the innocent. All the prosecution has to prove in the case of a foreign embassy is that the accused knew it was an embassy or building occupied by foreign diplomats covered by diplomatic immunity.
In my Bill, the prosecution also has to show that fear, et cetera, has been caused or is likely to be caused before a trespasser is guilty of an offence in a private house. I think it is certain that magistrates would have no difficulty in applying this part to ordinary life. After all, he who was so beloved of the 19th century judges, the "man on the Clapham omnibus" would, I suggest, have no difficulty at all. Criminal law requires value judgments to be made and the application of objective tests.
As to the provisions of the Bill, it starts with an interpretation clause, which says in subsection (2):
"the purpose of this Act is to protect people in their homes or other living quarters from intrusion".
1182
Then it defines "residential premises" in detail and, in doing so, it attempts to cover the many different circumstances in which people live and should have their privacy protected. There are several twilight areas; for example, the common parts of blocks of flats. These are excluded by Clause 1(3)(b). The parts of stately homes to which the public are admitted are dealt with in paragraph (c).
It may be necessary to amend the Bill at Committee stage to exclude fire escapes from the common parts but to include mobile homes among the types of private residence. I can think of nobody having any possible reason for being on a fire escape other than nefarious ones unless the house is burning. Lest anyone should think that the outdoor surroundings of residential premises are too widely described in paragraph (d), I must point out that no offence is committed unless fear, or distress and so on is caused or is likely to be caused. That will not happen unless the trespasser is close enough to the house. With that in mind, your Lordships will realise that, in practice, paragraph (d) would not give rise to any anxiety that the definition is too far reaching. There is no risk of a child whose ball goes over a garden wall committing an offence when going to retrieve it.
As for the example, given in paragraph 34 of the consultation document, of someone who passes through a neighbour's garden to gain access to his own allotment or land, no offence will be committed unless the person concerned causes the sort of trouble defined in Clause 2.
Clause 2 is the main clause of the Bill. It creates the offence and is, I trust, self-explanatory. It makes it clear that it is punishable only on summary conviction by a magistrate. The maximum sentence is 6 months imprisonment or a fine of £.1,000 or both. This is the same as in Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. In all maximum sentences, it is intended to cover the worst types of case; all other cases will involve the lower sentences. It is extremely rare for any maximum sentence to be passed.
Clause 3 provides the defence of lawful justification or a reasonable excuse for being on the premises, a necessary precaution to prevent people from being convicted when they have an innocent explanation of what they were doing. The belief by a person entering that he had a genuine right of entry would thus be a sound defence.
Clauses 4 and 5 give the same powers of entry and search as have been given to the police and those helping them by the Act since 1977. Clause 8 makes it clear that the Act applies only to England and Wales. We hope that it may inspire my noble friend the Lord Advocate, whom we are delighted to know will be speaking in the debate, to propose something similar for Scotland.
An Englishman's home is his castle, but the law so far in a minor extent has left a hole in its ramparts. With your Lordships help we can enable that Englishman to enjoy the privacy of his home, be it large or small, permanent of temporary, a palace or a council house, a nurses' bedroom or rooms in college. It would be very wrong to give protection only to palaces or Prime Minister's residences. Protection

1183
must be for all. Castles must not be selective. Castles must be for all.
My noble friend, Lord Renton, who has drafted this Bill tells me that I should claim credit for it, for its merits, and he will answer for its defects in detail. He is far too over-generous. It is his Bill as well as mine, for which I thank him very much. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[The Earl of Onslow.]
8.42 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if one Michael Fagan had not most wrongfully intruded into Buckingham Palace in June and July last year, I wonder whether this Bill would be before your Lordships today, with an invitation that it should be given a Second Reading. But it is absolutely true that when that event occurred the public was aghast and worried. Indeed, it came as a great surprise to many people, including some lawyers, that no criminal offence had been committed when somebody had wrongfully trespassed into a residence unless the intent of the entry was to commit a criminal offence or unless in some way it was associated with the perpetration of a criminal offence or an act of some violence. I can well understand, therefore, why this House and the nation at large should be very much interested in the matters that are being debated this evening.
The Home Secretary to his great credit, and moving with a speed to which the noble Earl did not pay sufficient homage as a loyal member of the Conservative Party, set up a consultative process with the help of the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. What then transpired was that a very useful, interesting and clear document, written in admirable English (which is not always the virtue of documents which issue from Government departments) reached the public only last month, entitled Trespass on Residential Premises. That document deals with the various difficulties that face anyone who wishes to deal with an innovation in our law, as it would be, namely, to make trespass of the kind defined in this Bill an offence.
This trespass is not associated with the intent of committing a criminal offence or violence, but merely deals with a trespass which has an effect, or is likely to have an effect—to quote the exact words of the Bill:
"causes or is likely to cause fear, distress, harassment or serious annoyance".
Comments were invited from the public and from all interested bodies that the noble Earl mentioned. He mentioned the Magistrates' Association, the chief constables; I am sure he had in mind also such distinguished bodies as the Bar Council and the Law Society. He invited those comments to be received by 3rd May this year.
If I may say so with great respect on behalf of the Opposition, having appreciated, as I did, the lucid and powerful speech made by the noble Earl, I can well understand that there was a desire to have the views of this House. I should have most respectfully suggested that those views are much better obtained if one is
1184
without the benefit of all the comments that will be made by various sections of the community. They would be much better obtained under the procedure of the House, either by putting down an Unstarred Question or by taking that glorious gamble, open to all Members of your Lordships' House, of participating in the ballot for short debates such as we have had this afternoon and this evening. I most respectfully query the wisdom of putting something before your Lordships for a general decision on principle, which is the purpose of a Second Reading of a Bill of this nature, when your Lordships have not had the benefit of the observations upon this discussion document.
Your Lordships may well have noticed the possibly significant absence of any Law Lord in the Chamber tonight and certainly the absence of any Law Lord on the speakers' list, with the exception of the distinguished lawyer, the Lord Advocate, whose address we shall hear, I have no doubt, at the end of this debate. I should be very surprised if he did not take the view that this is a rather premature stage at which your Lordships should be asked to come to a decision.
As this is a Second Reading, I promise I shall not enter into any point of detail. I shall not even tempt your Lordships to smile with me at the description of residential premises as being,
"research establishments, Inns of Court, or any other residential premises of a similar character".
Many of us work in the Inns of Court and do not necessarily regard them as principally residential premises. That would not be the normal lot of a research establishment, either. But I shall not go on to Committee points. I should like to deal (very shortly I promise your Lordships) with matters of general principle.
One thing the document does say in its introduction—the noble Earl could not be expected to quote extensively from it, but he did not include this quotation, although I know that that was not deliberate—is this:
"The Government believes that any extension of the criminal law in this area would represent an important development which ought not to be undertaken without the fullest possible consideration".
What your Lordships are invited to do, whether this Bill be amended or not, is to say that you are going to approve of an addition to our criminal law which has not been deemed necessary for century after century and which certainly did not follow upon the Royal Commission's report of 1976, which culminated in the Criminal Law Act 1977 to which the noble Earl referred. It may be a right thing to do, but is it the right thing to pass that as a matter of principle on Second Reading, before all the views have been accumulated and considered by your Lordships on this very discussion document to which I have referred?
The document itself, too, sets out three principles to be observed before embarking upon the dangerous act of adding to the criminal law and adding to imprisonable offences, especially at this time. This discussion document raises three vital criteria which should be looked at before one creates a new criminal offence. The first is,
"that the criminal law should be used to prohibit or to contain only that behaviour which is seen as meriting society's explicit disapproval to the extent of criminal sanctions to deter people from it and to punish those who are not deterred"—
Lord Foot: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us the paragraph from which he is quoting, because I want to follow it?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for asking me to do that. I am reading from page 7, paragraphs 18, 19 and 20. The document continues:
"A second principle is that in general criminal sanctions should be reserved for dealing with Undesirable behaviour for which other, less drastic, measures of control would be ineffective, impracticable or insuffcient".
The third and final principle, to which the document calls very special attention, is:
"It is important that a new offence should be enforceable. Respect for and compliance with the criminal law as a whole depend on its being enforced".
I pause there for a moment, in no way yet attacking the principle of this Bill, but merely raising a big question mark as to whether we are yet able to deal with a Second Reading. Can your Lordships imagine the number of private prosecutions that there could be, with people taking others to court for what they regard as wrongful intrusion, and the defendant then being made to discharge the onus placed upon him under this Bill—because he will have to appear before a court—of proving before a court that, in his view, he was there for good reason, and that his action was justifiable? All of us lawyers know that there are enough disputes brought before the court in regard to title, or by people who have orders for possession made against them in the court, and who feel entitled to go back to the landlord and tell him that he is being merciless and ought to extend the 28 days which have been given by the court for possession, and so on.
There is a second consideration. We were all appalled by what happened in the Fagan incident—appalled because of the lack of security and appalled because, from our point of view, this was, as it were, striking at the heart of the nation, with the embarrassment and—but for her courageous disposition—the fear that there might have been installed in the Monarch by an incident of that kind. The noble Earl referred to the fact that some of us are wondering whether or not it would be sensible—I am not expressing a definite view—to add to the list mentioned in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and put the Royal residences, and possibly some other establishments, on exactly the same basis as diplomatic premises, and make it an offence to trespass upon those premises.
It is absolutely true that there is an argument against that, but you would not need this Bill for that. The argument against it, if I may take the noble Earl's phrase, which he did not originate—as he will be the first to admit—is that every Englishman's home is his castle. It may be that the answer to this is that every Englishman is entitled to regard his home as being Windsor Castle, with exactly the same privileges. That may be the answer, but you cannot just except certain premises. That is a matter that must be carefully considered, after all the comments have been received on this discussion document.
I freely say to your Lordships, on behalf of the Opposition, that my noble friends and I have not made up our minds on these issues, and we shall not do so
1186
until we hear what the public, the institutes, the organisations, the police and everybody else have to say. I am not going to accept the verdict of the Deputy Chief Constable of Sussex—for whom I have admiration, even though I do not have the privilege of knowing him—as the view of the police.
So I come to my conclusion. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are to be thanked for allowing us to express a view tonight. It must be a provisional view; I do not think it can be a view on principle. From the Benches where I sit, I shall certainly not ask this House to divide on the Second Reading. But after what I have said, I most respectfully suggest to the noble Earl and the noble Lord that it might be very wise—if I may say this most humbly—not to put to the House the Motion for a Second Reading tonight, but to withdraw the Bill. The First Reading has already been passed and there is no reason why the Second Reading, if they want it, should not take place at another date after 3rd May, or after the Government have had time, and after we have all had time, to consider what is really involved in an addition to our criminal law which may, or may not, be necessary.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, about one matter there is no doubt. Everybody who listens to this debate and who takes part it in will respect the motives that have prompted the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to promote this Bill. Secondly, I am at a very considerable disadvantage in speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is hazardous at any time to follow him, but it is particularly hazardous when we are discussing a matter of legal importance, and he has managed to say practically everything that I was intending to say. Therefore, my speech will be, very largely, simply a matter of underlining very briefly some of the points which he has already made.
The first of them is the fact that this Bill is being brought forward in bland disregard of the advice and the warning which was quoted by the noble Lord from the introduction to the consultative paper. The Government there emphasised the importance, as they saw it—and I entirely agree with that—of there being the fullest possible consultation with everybody concerned before any decision was made. By bringing the Bill forward before the consultation process is complete—one only has to wait until the beginning of May for the full returns—the noble Earl has pre-empted the issue.
As the consultation document makes clear, there are three conceivable options. One is the option provided for by the Bill. Another option would be to introduce a law making it a criminal offence to trespass upon certain limited, vulnerable and important properties, in the same manner as the 1977 Act makes it an offence to trespass upon a diplomatic mission. The third option is to do nothing at all but to leave the law as it is and as it has been for the last many centuries. I cannot accept that bringing the Bill forward at this time enables this House to express a general view upon the various options, because the Bill goes for one option only and does not, therefore, provide us with a satisfactory form in which to discuss

1187
all the issues which are here involved.
The second reason for my doubt and objection to the Bill is that it creates a new criminal offence, one which has never been known before. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly said, surely it is very odd that at this time, of all times, when the general feeling of the informed public is that it is desirable to reduce the number of criminal offences and the number of offences which put people into gaol, we should be confronted with a Bill which is designed to extend the area of the criminal law. I would suggest that such an extension of the criminal law could be justified only if it could be shown beyond doubt that here there was some grave social evil which is not caught by the present law. Until we know the result of the consultations I do not believe that there is any evidence to show that there is such a grave social evil.
My third objection, again like that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is what I might call the provenance of the Bill. Surely it is perfectly true that nobody would ever have thought of introducing a Bill of this kind had it not been for the Fagan incident in the summer of last year. That event, which seemed almost incredible to the public at the time, was of so unusual and exceptional a nature as never to be repeated. Supposing that this Bill had been the law of the land before Mr. Fagan intruded into the Palace, does anybody believe that he would have been deterred and that the Queen would have been protected because a law had been passed to this effect? It is strange, is it not, that this Bill, which owes its existence to the Fagan incident, would have been ineffective in averting the mischief that was done on that occasion. It was an occasion never likely to be repeated. It would never have happend at all if the security arrangements at the Palace had not been grossly deficient. We are now asked to assent to a major change in the law. The incident of last summer is said to be justification for making a sweeping change to the criminal law of this land as it has been for so many years past.
The other defect of the Bill, it seems to me, is that it ignores the fact that the question of trespass and whether trespass on residential property should or should not be a criminal matter was fully considered by the Law Commission in 1976. The Criminal Law Act 1977 put into effect at that time the recommendations of the Law Commission. When the Law Commission were considering these matters they provided that there should be criminal sanctions in one or two very strictly limited areas. One of them was to enable a displaced householder to recover his property from a squatter. Another made it a criminal offence to trespass upon a diplomatic mission.
What was the criterion which the Law Commission thought fit to apply when they were considering making exceptions to what had always been the law—that trespass upon private property should be a civil, not a criminal matter? The criterion which they adopted is set out at paragraph 9 of the consultation paper. Perhaps I may read the relevant words.
"Important exceptions to the general rule that the criminal law does not involve itself in disputes over possession of property were created by the 1977 Act. The exceptions were made because of the degree of hardship which would arise if an immediate action could not be taken to restore to a displaced occupier the use of his living accommodation".
1188
These are the words to which I draw your Lordships' particular attention:
"The general principle reflected in this legislation, therefore, is the need to protect the most pressing and urgent interests of people who are severely affected by the actions of others".
We have no evidence to suggest that this proposed law is necessary in order to meet that criterion. I will not pursue the matter further.
I believe, with all respect, that the authors of this Bill are mistaken in bringing it before the House at this stage. I hope that they will accede to the very forceful argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the Bill ought, even at this stage, to be withdrawn. If the authors had held their hand, and then after the completion of consultations had initiated a debate in your Lordships' House on the whole issue raised by the consultation paper, that would have been a very valuable service. As it is, they have jumped the gun, and I am afraid that they have jumped the gun to little purpose.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I would wish to associate myself, without any qualification whatsoever, with everything that has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Foot, including the tribute to the sincerity and motives on the part of my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Renton. If the concept of this Bill is truly reflected in the purpose clause—that is, to protect people in their homes or other living quarters from intrusion—the scope of this Bill extends far beyond the purpose clause. It extends to premises in which no one resides—
Lord Renton: No, my Lords.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My noble friend, from a sedentary position, says, No.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as my noble friend has given way, I must point out to him that if he reads carefully the definition of "residential premises", he will find that they are essentially premises in which people do reside; and that in what my noble friend Lord Onslow calls the "twilight areas", the Bill says that they should not be regarded as residential premises.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I gave way to my noble friend because I had not, even at that stage, begun to develop the reason for what I had said to your Lordships. I repeat—and I shall explain and hope to satisfy your Lordships—that the scope of this Bill extends to premises in which no one ever resides; gardens, yards, lawns, drives, and so on and so forth, but I shall come to that point later.
The Bill also does not exclude accidental trespass. Whatever my noble friend Lord Onslow may have said, the Bill does not do so. That is an aspect, with the difficulties involved, to which paragraph 25 of the consultative document refers. This extension of incidence beyond the ambit of the purpose clause gives rise to serious reservations on questions of principle, to which it is proper to draw your Lordships' attention on Second Reading. These are reservations, the rectitude of which—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if my noble friend will give way, he says that accidental trespass is not excluded or is not a defence. I would have thought that the words,
"or reasonable excuse for being on the residential premises"
meant that if a man says, "I am very sorry, but I lost my way on my way to see somebody", then any reasonable magistrate will regard that as being a perfectly valid and reasonable excuse.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I was trying to move away from the details of this Bill's drafting owing to the embarrassing position in which I find myself vis-à-vis my noble friend Lord Renton. But as I am compelled to deal with it, I shall stand my ground and make good my submissions.
The rectitude of some of these matters is dealt with in paragraph 3 of the consultative document. The reservations which I have expressed relate to the creation of an offence established by proof of subjective criteria as a matter of causation, where the defence of lawful justification or of reasonable excuse does not, in terms, apply to unintentional trespass. It is not, with respect, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Onslow, an objective test; it is a subjective test. We are not, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Onslow, concerned with the man on the Clapham omnibus. That is only relevant to civil litigation; we are concerned with criminal litigation. Furthermore, these criteria, which are subjective, oblige the magistrates to consider what causes, and what is likely to cause but does not cause, any of the four statutory emotions. My Lords, in context with this Bill, a somewhat refined and esoteric exercise.
Of course, there are precedents in the law for the use of "likely to cause" in other statutes, as the broad equivalent of "calculated", in circumstances which are always designed to exclude intention as a constituent element of the offence. But why exclude intention? In my submission, it is not appropriate to eviscerate intention; it ought to be a constituent element of this offence. Why? Because it affords the only effective safeguard against injustice by accidental trespass.
This is not just a case of the estranged husband trudging up the driveway of his father-in-law's house to seek a reconciliation with a reluctant wife, against the express wish of the father-in-law, or the tramp cooking his breakfast in the stable yard without lawful justification or reasonable excuse. Suppose the owner or occupier of a house goes on a business trip, leaving his servant in charge, and he says to the servant, "Admit no one". The servant admits his brother-in-law, who happens to be a drink-sodden ex-pugilist addicted to drugs. The owner returns unexpectedly and is confronted by the brother-in-law and suffers one of the statutory emotions, say fear. Is there lawful excuse, reasonable excuse, lawful justification?
Suppose a visitor to some stately home unwittingly strays into some part of the house or the garden—I emphasise garden because under paragraph (d) that is included—which exceeds the area of his authority or his invitation, and so causes distress or serious annoyance to some aged aunt who is at work on her tapestry. The offence is committed. Suppose, for example, the aged aunt is so engrossed in her tapestry that she fails to notice the intrusion and so in fact is
1190
caused no distress or annoyance—but, of course, if she had noticed she would have been caused, or would be likely to have been caused, such emotion—and the intrusion was noticed by some guide, who suffered none of the statutory emotions, nor was likely to, who reported it to the owner.
I mention these matters not in order to be disrespectful in any sense to those who are concerned with the drafting of this Bill, but to show really that it does not sufficiently safeguard against accidental trespass. Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the assertion of my noble friend Lord Onslow that he thinks it does, I submit that it plainly does not. One really comes to this. If we are to prune these drafting provisions to conform with the shape of that purpose clause, to remove some of these legal and metaphysical problems with which magistrates might well be confronted, what should be done?
I am no draftsman and I make no pretence to be one, but may I advance some tentative suggestions on matters of principle; although of course I accept that it is possible to entertain many views. They are very simple. First, on residential premises. On Clause 1(3)(a)—the long paragraph (a) at the beginning—why could not one revert to the simple concept of permanent or temporary living quarters used for private habitation? Why not delete Clause 1(3)(d) altogether with the driveways, the tennis courts, the yards, and so on? On the offence, to ensure that the offence is only committed if the accused is aware that he is on residential premises without authority, or remains there knowing that he has exceeded such authority, why not quite simply substitute for lines 16 to 18 just this:
"Any person who knowingly trespasses on residential property shall be guilty of an offence.".
With the simplicity that that involves one provides a fair and reasonable protection against accidental trespass.
The possible advantages of adopting the suggestions which I have tentatively put forward would be to create an offence where the accused knew he was, without authority or having exceeded such authority, on premises used for private human habitation. This would have the further advantage of rendering the lawful justification or excuse provisions wholly otiose; they would not be necessary. Once one makes the offence one of intention, that the accused knew he was on residential property without authority, there is no need whatever to have the defence clause at all. There would be other advantages. As regards residential premises the conflict, as I see it, between Clause 1(3)(d) and Clause 1(4)(a) could be removed. As regards the offence, problems associated with causation, the "likely to cause" which does not cause, the qualitative distinction as regards annoyance and the unwitting trespass would all be resolved. The third advantage would be that as regards due administration there would be simplicity.
I assure my noble friends that I have advanced these proposals in only a constructive spirit, but are any of these counter proposals apt to prevent the mischief embodied in the basic concept of the purpose clause? If so, as a matter of principle, will these counter proposals be acceptable to your Lordships and, what is much more important, will they be acceptable to Her

1191
Majesty's Government, because without their acceptance and support we shall all toil in vain?
I should have preferred my speech to serve in lieu of comments to the Home Office for consideration along with other speeches which your Lordships have made and will make in this debate. I should have preferred the due process of consultation to continue so that my suggestions could be properly considered. Perhaps they are wrong, and I know that my noble friends on either side of me disagree with me, but we cannot entertain a serious and constructive discussion here. I should have thought, with respect to your Lordships, that this is a matter where reservations should be leisurely entertained and properly considered. That certainly would have avoided the dilemma in which I find myself tonight.
9.25 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. We have needed some legislation of this kind for a long time. In fact, when I realised what the present situation was, I was quite horrified. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke for myself and everybody else in the country when he underlined that fact. I therefore very warmly support the intention of the noble Earl's Bill and I very much hope that, if the Government cannot accept it with some amendment, they will very soon produce a Bill of their own which will put things right.
I am in the unfortunate position of not having realised until too late this evening, so that I might get hold of it and read it, that there was a consultative document. Therefore, I find myself at a certain disadvantage compared with the rest of your Lordships. However, I have considerable reservations about various parts of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has, I think, mentioned all my reservations about Clause 1(3) paragraphs (a) and (d) and Clause 2. Therefore, as he has already said everything I was going to say, only he put it very much better, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has also spoken at some length about this, I shall not repeat what I was going to say. But I do very much hope that this Second Reading, if it turns out to be such, will be helpful, if not to the birth of a new law as a result of this Bill, then in enabling the Government to bring in a Bill of their own which will deal with the situation.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that he found himself slightly embarrassed. I can assure him that he is no more embarrassed than I am at once again having to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, who speaks so firmly for the Opposition that I assume that this has been discussed among the Opposition. I would just reassure the noble Earl, who by this time must be feeling rather depressed, that I at least am not going to criticise his Bill. I feel that we have once again, with the exception of my noble friend who has just spoken, been listening to the Law Lords: the legal experts. I think that it is useful that occasionally in debates of this sort we hear from the people who have not had the advantage of studying the law in the same way as my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Campbell of Alloway.
1192
It was a profound shock to many people to learn that an intruder who gets through the security defences of Buckingham Palace can confront the Queen in her own bedroom and cannot be prosecuted for this offence on its own. I would say to noble Lords who have suggested that this is exceptional that I had a very similar experience when I woke up and found a man in my room. He compounded the matter by stealing my handbag, so he had at least committed an offence. But I would say to your Lordships that the matter of intruders getting into houses is not exceptional. We are not dealing with something that is a one-off. It may be a one-off to get into the Palace, hopefully, but it is certainly not generally an exceptional circumstance.
If a gate-crasher attends your private party and refuses to leave, as I understand it you may use reasonable force to eject him. We come back once again to the definition of "reasonable force". What is "reasonable"? What will be defined as "reasonable"? If you call the police, the policeman may assist you but it is not his duty to do so, and indeed he can be protected by saying that it is not his duty to do so unless you can prove that a breach of the peace was about to be committed. This is not easy. Strange events occur nowadays.
Quite recently a group of protesting prostitutes occupied a church and refused to leave because the police had no powers to take action against them—in other words, they were trespassers. Squatters occupied a house in my own borough. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that there is one slight defect in the law relating to squatters which was shown up by that incident. They occupied a house that was not already occupied by the people who had bought it. But is was intended to be converted by a group who had bought it for the use of mentally handicapped young people. They were in the process of converting it when the squatter got in. I should not say this as a magistrate, but I was delighted when six unknown persons went in and threw the squatter out, thus committing an offence, although the squatter had not committed an offence. I understand that they also put his belongings in the front garden, very thoughtfully covering them with plastic sheeting. Those belongings were interesting, bearing in mind that he was a squatter and unable to pay rent. They included very expensive video and camera equipment. That is an interesting comment on the kind of people who are unable to pay rent.
I would only draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that ordinary people have the great feeling that they are not getting natural justice, and that is the matter about which we must be concerned. We have heard a great deal about how we should have waited for the consultative document. I am amazed that my noble friend on the Front Bench used this argument, because the noble Earl drew attention very subtly to the fact that when he talked about bringing forward the Bill, the consultative document mysteriously appeared. We all know the fate of consultative documents. Indeed, the noble Lady did not even know that there was a consultative document. If there is any kind of consultation how many people will know about it? How many people will reply to it? Ultimately, how quickly will the Home Office act when they receive the consultations? We must not

1193
place too much reliance on the mass of evidence that is going to flow to the department as a result of the consultative document.
I would draw attention—and I hope that this will comfort the noble Earl—to the fact that I should like to see an extension of the Bill. I appreciate that this is impossible, because the consultative document and the Bill refer to residential premises and as I understand it, the church to which I have referred would not be covered by the provisions of this Bill when it became law. There are many commercial and industrial premises where a trespasser, as described in the Bill, certainly causes fear, distress, harassment or serious annoyance. I could give your Lordships a number of examples, but I shall give just one. The shopkeeper opens his premises evey day to the public who are invited to view the goods on display and "treat"—that is the phrase—and buy them. Unfortunately it is becoming all too common for individuals and groups to enter the shop not with any intention of viewing the goods, treating or indeed buying, but with the intention of causing harassment and irritation to the legitimate customers.
Perhaps some of your Lordships do not go into supermarkets—there are times when I wonder whether your Lordships go into the real world at all, in view of some of the discussions that we have—but I am sorry to say that this happens in all shopping precincts, and I invite your Lordships to go to one on a Saturday afternoon. Gangs of youths jostle, harass and generally annoy the genuine shopper, who not unreasonably decides that she will go elsewhere. These people are not committing any offence until they actually do something. The noble Lord nods his head. I do not speak without some knowledge of this. When the police are called they have to prove that a breach of the peace is about to be committed and, generally speaking, they are unable to do just that. If there is some way in which we can get round this, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will be able to advise some of the people who constantly call to me for help. The shopkeeper has the right to invite the trespasser to leave the premises. If the trespasser resists his invitation, he has the right to use reasonable force to eject him. This is a very difficult business in which very few shopkeepers will engage.
A public restaurant is another very common example where this could happen. One suffers irritation by people who rush up and down committing no technical offence; they have been invited to come in, so they are not even trespassers in the sense that they have gone into someone else's premises. But they do make life difficult. It is just another example, from which we suffer all the time, of the tiresome minority who make life more and more difficult for the majority who want to move about their business and pleasure without interruption.
I feel very strongly in this matter and I think that the consultative document will be a good start. This Bill is a good follow up. I am quite sure that your Lordships, with your usual ability to sort through every word, will be able to deal with it in the way we have heard this evening. There is a sense of natural justice which must be satisfied. If people intrude on premises which are private, they are entitled to be ejected or at least to be dealt with under some kind of law. Some noble Lords
1194
have suggested that this law would be too severe. The noble Earl made the point that it is very unusual for people to receive the maximum penalties of the law. Indeed, in relation to six months' imprisonment, some people would say that this is now becoming increasingly unusual, even for theft, unless it is accompanied by violence. Therefore, I wish this Bill a fair passage. If, eventually, the Government have the moral courage to accept the Bill, that would be excellent. If at the end of May they receive a mass of evidence which they can incorporate in the Bill, equally, that would be good. But this is a start.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, after the three no-hope speeches which preceded them, I am sure that your Lordships will be gratified and enthused to hear the warm support given to the Bill of my noble friend Lord Onslow by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who stated more vividly than perhaps any mere man could have done the need for the Bill, which, as I have found since the Fagan incident last summer, is felt by so many of the women of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that we should await the consultative document and asked why we had introduced the Bill. I hope that I am not saying anything rude about the Home Office, for which I have a great regard. Indeed, I spent four and a half of the best years of my life there, and in my first session with the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden we got five Bills onto the statute book before Easter. They have all stood the test of time. One of them was the Life Peerages Act, to which so many of us owe our presence in this House. So I am a pro-Home Office man.
However, I must say on this occasion the feeling of my noble friend and myself was that, unless we took some initiative, nothing would be done. After all, I sent in too simple a Bill in August last, and it was not until we saw my noble friend and my honourable and learned friend, as we call him in the other place, Mr. Mayhew, in mid-November that there was any suggestion of a consultative document at all. Instead of being chided for ignoring the consultative document, perhaps some appreciation is due to us for having helped the Home Office to get a move on. After all, when the period for consultation ends on 3rd May, that will, if my arithmetic is right, be no less than 10 months after the Fagan incident.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned, it was surely not just the Fagan incident that has caused concern. There have been many cases of other circumstances which have come before the courts. Of course the point she makes about shops is, in a sense, a separate point, and we have not attempted to deal with it, but no doubt the noble Baroness will wish us to consider it when we come to the Committee stage.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we have had debates in your Lordships' House on consultation papers and on White Papers, and we have done so before the Government have been able to collect all the opinions expressed outside. Both the Green Papers on trade unions we discussed well before the end of the

1195
consultation period, and I think that both Front Benches were glad that that was done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would want to be fair to the point that I made. I said how welcome it would have been if there had been an Unstarred Question, or the gamble had been taken of a short debate. My point was that it is not usual to bring a Bill before the House during a consultation period.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was just coming to that point. I venture to suggest that if we had waited to have a short debate on the ballot, or an Unstarred Question, it would not have enabled the progress to be achieved which could be achieved, if the will is there, by this Bill receiving a Second Reading tonight, the Committee stage not being taken until after 3rd May, and the Government and all concerned meanwhile having the opportunity to consider improving the drafting of the Bill. After all, my noble friend Lord Onslow and I were only enthusiastic amateurs when it came to drafting.
I feel that, instead of being chided in the way we were by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Foot, some appreciation might have been given for the, shall I say, gentle spurring and the progress which may result from a Bill being introduced at this stage in your Lordships' House. After all, it would mean progress because, if we had waited until the end of the consultation period and then the Government had perhaps either drafted a Bill or handed it to a Private Member in either House, or introduced it themselves, it would have been more difficult to get it on to the statute book this Session than if your Lordships give it a Second Reading tonight. Therefore, my advice to my noble friend would be not to withdraw the Bill. Especially after the speeches of the two noble Baronesses, I hope he will not do so.
It would be tempting to attempt to answer the various points of detail and drafting that have been made, but perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—he is indeed a friend in the best sense of the word—that the points which he made and described as points of principle seem to me to be mainly points which can be attended to in Committee, and some of them were drafting points. I go so far as to say that it was clear to me that in some respects he misread the Bill and was not aware of precedents. I cannot blame him for not being aware, because he is not an author of the Bill, whereas as an author of it I endeavoured to study the various precedents. Precedents have to be adapted. In trying to fill this narrow but serious gap in the criminal law we are breaking new ground. But to the extent that there are precedents I think that it would be helpful to mention them, very briefly.
I refer, for example, to the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, in which, I am glad to say, there is a compendious description of a dwelling-house. It is stated to include:
"any building or part thereof which is occupied as a dwelling…".
What the Act then goes on to state answers the criticism that my noble friend made of Clause 1(3)(d). The Act then states:
"and any yard, garden, garage or outhouse belonging to the dwelling house and occupied therewith".
1196
There are various ways in which residential premises are described—all of them I agree more compendiously—but we felt it right on this occasion, if only to put all our cards on the table, to go into some detail in the description of residential premises. I hope that it will be felt that it was right for us to do so. I should be glad if parliamentary counsel could find a compendious way of describing the various circumstances in which people dwell, but excluding those circumstances in which it would not be right to consider a person to be a trespasser, and in which there is no real threat to privacy. I deeply respect my old friend—though not in the strict sense, my noble friend—Lord Foot, because we have known one another for more years than we should like to say. I respect his views about the right to privacy. One might have wished that sooner or later Parliament would have had on the statute book an Act dealing in a general way with privacy, but meanwhile surely it cannot be wrong for us to legislate in this simple way on the most serious threat to privacy with which we are faced.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to the inclusion of the words "or likely to cause" in the description of the offence. There are of course precedents for that phrase—good precedents, and fairly numerous ones. The Factories Act 1961 refers to
"… a contravention which was likely to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, any person …".
Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act 1930 refers to leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position
"in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road";
and goes on to state that the person concerned
"shall be guilty of an offence".
One could multiply the examples, near examples, and analogies which are to be found in the statute book.
However, it all comes to the point that the magistrates are accustomed to having to decide issues involving the subjective state of mind of an accused, issues involving the subjective state of mind of a victim—and reference has been made to that—and the objective situation which arises as, for example, on the use of the words "likely to cause".
Between now and the Committee stage one will be glad to consider the detailed suggestions that have been made for the improvement of the Bill. I would believe that there is an answer to most of them. But there it is. The parliamentary counsel will, I hope, be instructed by the Government to consider this matter, not necessarily waiting entirely until the conclusion of the consultation period but getting on with it meanwhile; because many views will be expressed, no doubt, between now and 3rd May. I have great confidence in parliamentary counsel. They will, no doubt, produce something different from what we have said. I only hope that it will also be something better. In conclusion, may I say that I feel that my noble friend Lord Onslow deserves credit for his desire to influence your Lordships and the Government and to get this serious gap in the Bill filled, so that, as noble Baronesses have said, the public can feel easier about the state of our law.
9.52 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, may I first say how grateful we are to my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Renton for giving us this opportunity to discuss such an important subject and one which has occasioned a great deal of public concern. Reference has already been made to the incident which so dramatically focused public attention and concern on this area of the law. An immediate consequence of the incident was that steps were taken to tighten up security. I hardly need add that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is continuing to keep a very close watch on the operation of security measures to protect the Royal Family.
For our purposes tonight, however, the lesson which many people took from that disturbing incident was not the need to improve security at Buckingham Palace, vital though that was, so much as that it revealed, apparently, a loophole in the criminal law. How could it be that no charge could be preferred against the intruder save that relating to his consumption of wine not belonging to him? It was absolutely clear, from the volume of correspondence subsequently received by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, as well as from comment in the press and generally, that large sections of the public had thought the criminal law already dealt with that situation and were shocked to learn that it did not.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, recognising the depth of public concern, decided that the law in this area must be closely examined, and this he arranged to do in consultation with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. The Secretary of State for Scotland has set in train a parallel review in Scotland. As your Lordships know, the upshot of it was that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intimated on 11th November that he proposed to undertake a process of consultation. I think that my noble friend Lord Renton visited my honourable and learned friend Mr. Mayhew on 16th November, and the consultation paper was issued on 2nd February, setting out a number of issues on which wider debate seemed necessary.
I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the very kind comments he made about the consultation paper and the way in which it was written. I believe that these comments were very well based and deserved. The debate tonight is a valuable and constructive contribution to that debate and I am glad that one consequence of it at least has been that it has brought the existence of the consultation paper to the attention of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I should like to say how useful it has been that others than lawyers have taken part in this discussion. I welcome particularly what was said in that connection because these are matters of concern to all of us. Lawyers are apt sometimes to get too engrossed in technicalities and it is always refreshing to hear what was described as an ordinary person's comments—although the person was really a very extraordinary person.
Against the background I have described it is perhaps the more surprising that the criminal law has
1198
not hitherto been deployed in relation to trespass as such on residential premises. I say the criminal law has not penalised trespass "as such" because there is, of course, a considerable body of criminal law designed to protect the ordinary citizen in his or her home from unwelcome intruders, even though the act of trespass itself is not a criminal offence. So, for example, when the trespass is accompanied by the use or threat of violence to secure entry, and the trespasser knows there is someone on the premises opposed to that entry, or if the trespasser is carrying a weapon, he is liable to prosecution under the Criminal Law Act 1977. It is also an offence to enter property with intent to commit an offence. If the intention is to steal, to indict grievous bodily harm or commit rape, or to do unlawful damage, then that is burglary, punishable with up to 14 years' imprisonment. And, of course, the general criminal law applies to a trespasser on residential premises who commits theft or criminal damage, or any other offence, as it does elsewhere.
I have described the criminal law in this area in some little detail because I think many people may not have been aware of its full extent. People who have picked up the impression, following the Fagan incidents, that anybody can come into their homes and behave just as they please, can take, I hope, some reassurance from what I have said—namely, that there are provisions to deal with those who have some criminal motive or whose conduct is criminal in any respect.
In other cases, however, this is a matter which traditionally has been the province of the civil law. Before the Fagan intrusions, it was, I suppose, generally accepted that people did not go uninvited into other people's homes unless they had crime in mind. The danger now—to which some of your Lordships have referred—is that certain types of people, realising that they will not be liable to prosecution, may be tempted to emulate the behaviour of Mr. Fagan, not at Buckingham Palace but in ordinary houses, and to do so just for the fun of it. I do not know how serious the risk of what might be termed "copycat intrusion" is but I wholly sympathise with concern at any such prospect.
Your Lordships have also referred to other situations which may not at present be covered by the criminal law but should be. I can see the difficulties encountered by the police when, for example, an intruder is discovered before he has actually committed an offence, and that they would prefer perhaps to be able to arrest him and deal with him without having to wait for an offence to be committed. But these situations surely also existed before Mr. Fagan's notorious escapades. Should we not then ask ourselves why it was possible for us to manage for so long without the criminal law in this area, with no apparent ill effects, until, that is, the events of last summer? Normally when one asks that in other contexts the answer is simply that the law is the same as it has been for many, many years and has just not adapted to the conditions and requirements of modern society. But this cannot really be said of this particular piece of the law. The law in this area was—as the noble Lord, Lord Foot reminded us—thoroughly overhauled as recently as the Criminal Law Act 1977, which followed much

1199
deliberation and an inquiry by the Law Commission into the law of England and Wales.
We must, therefore, look elsewhere for an explanation. The answer, I believe, is probably two-fold: first of all, that hitherto no one saw much need for the criminal law to extend beyond the realm of burglary and the other offences which I have mentioned; and second, that the criminal law was not really seen as an appropriate instrument to deal with acts of trespass as such—what I shall call for convenience "simple trespass", to distinguish it from trespass, associated with a definite criminal motive, or other criminal conduct. Now, however, we find ourselves in a situation in which we must reassess whether the involvement of the criminal law is required to deal with the situations which noble Lords have described. This raises not just issues of technical drafting and detailed administration but also issues of general policy, which I suggest are not as clear-cut as has occasionally been suggested.
Parliament is rightly cautious about creating new criminal offences, and certain general principles have been evolved over the years, which I think may be helpful here. As the consultation paper issued by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary suggests, the criminal law should not be invoked in every case to redress a private wrong, but only where it is established also that the public interest requires it. That is an essential precondition, if you like; and some of your Lordships have argued forcefully that it is met in this particular instance.
In additon, we require of statutory criminal offences that it should be clear that respect for the law cannot be maintained if people are genuinely uncertain of its boundaries. If the law is not clear, and people are uncertain of its boundaries, respect for the law is thereby undermined. We also require that the criminal law should be enforceable—as sound common sense, as well as principle, demands. We cannot put the police into situations made impossible by the very nature of the law involved. And, lastly, we need to ensure that any new criminal offence does not have unintended side-effects, by, for example, catching those whose behaviour was not at all the target at which the legislation was aiming.
Leaving aside points of detail, I turn to examination of how the Bill measures up to the broad principles I have sought to describe. Your Lordships will have your own views, based on your own experience and what you may have heard from others, on the extent of the need for a criminal offence in this area. I think it is common ground between my noble friend Lord Onslow and ourselves that there is a gap in the law, and that this can result in some extremely alarming forms of behaviour escaping without criminal sanctions. My noble friend has given some examples of these, and the consultative document, at paragraphs 23 and 24, gives some further examples of patently offensive and unreasonable behaviour which might not be caught by the criminal law.
I do not think there can be any doubt that a strong argument can be put for saying that these warrant the use of criminal sanctions. As the consultation paper
1200
also points out, however, the difficulty lies in distinguishing between these and other more innocent or trivial forms of trespass, about which many may feel a good deal less strongly. It is this wider context which causes the Government the greatest concern and, as I shall explain a little later, makes us anxious to ensure that any new offence would not have undesirable side effects.
The next point is whether the boundaries of the proposed criminal offence are clearly enough drawn to avoid genuine uncertainty over whether or not one is committing an offence. Illustrations have been given about that by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in relation to this Bill. As to enforceability, I do not think we are yet really in a position to judge whether the offence would give rise to insuperable difficulties for the police and the courts. I do believe that it might often place the police in a difficult position where, for example, estranged relatives each accused the other of trespass and causing serious annoyance. It would not always be possible for the police, on the spur of the moment, to unravel the rights and wrongs of such a dispute. But might it not be feasible—and a sensible step for them to take; allowing tempers to cool—in the first instance merely to advise the parties of their rights, as the police might understand them, to take civil action? The weight attached by the police or the courts to such potential difficulty is one of the crucial matters on which I know my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking to his consultations for guidance. It is interesting to see that my noble friend Lord Onslow, in making preparations for his very interesting speech tonight, thought it right to consult a senior officer of the police force of Surrey, as he told us.
The last principle that I enumerated was the need to avoid unintended side effects. There I have a question to put to your Lordships and it is this. Can we be sure that the Bill will not allow the criminal law to be drawn into matters which all would agree are better dealt with outside it? The remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, are again relevant to that question. What, in fact, will prevent a party to a dispute—for example, over property—using the threat of prosecution merely to frighten or irritate the other party? I entirely accept that in such cases a conviction would be unlikely, but I am quite confident that a good deal of trouble could be caused before that result was reached.
I know that my noble friend Lord Onslow has made a brave attempt in Clause 2 of the Bill to meet this point by in effect restricting the offence to circumstances in which fear, distress, harassment or serious annoyance is caused or is likely to be caused. I think we must recognise, however, that even with such a tightly drawn provision the risk is still there. It needs to be recognised that there may be a price which has to be paid for creating a new criminal offence on the lines proposed. I entirely recognise that we could by such means catch the notorious kinds of cases described by my noble friend. The question which needs to be answered is; is this of a sufficiently high social priority to justify the sort of risk I have just described? There may well be many who will answer, Yes; and there may be some who will be impatient that the question

1201
even needs to be asked. But I submit that the Government would be in dereliction of their duty if they did not ask people to address their minds to this important consideration which has implications not only for civil liberties but also for the work of the courts and the police.
This is why I say that the noble Earl's proposals have implications for policy as well as for mere drafting. The question is very much—and in the best of all possible senses—a political one. It requires balancing the need to cope with an obvious and manifest abuse against the dangers of creating an offence which, however tightly circumscribed, might affect activities which are quite unsuitable for being dealt with by way of the criminal law.
The Government fully recognise that informed opinion and the public in general may well come down in favour of proposals something on the lines of those put forward today by my noble friend. It is far from self-evident, however, that this will be everyone's opinion, and in the Government's view it was only right that these issues should be put out for the widest possible consideration and comment.
As noble Lords know, a deadline of 3rd May was set for comments on the consultation paper. This was the shortest period consistent with the time required for internal consideration and discussion by the organisations consulted, some of whom have large and scattered memberships. We are concerned, however, to ensure that in this area of the law affecting individuals' rights and their privacy we get any change that is required absolutely right. That is why we have taken the trouble to set out the issues in the consultation paper, which is not the sort of document that can be produced overnight. Now we have that document and have put people to the trouble of considering it—I am sure they are glad to do so, given the importance to many of them of these issues—but now that we have taken this step, we as a Government feel bound not to reach final conclusions in advance of having the benefit of the advice we have sought and which we know will have been very painstakingly considered.
So far we have not received very many replies from those who were asked to comment. As noble Lords might expect, after an initial flurry of instant comment things settle down until very near the end of the consultation period, when longer considered contributions start to be received in greater numbers. From the replies received to date, however, no clear picture has emerged from those whom we specifically consulted —certainly not such as to add to the value of your Lordships' debate.
In all these circumstances, the Government find themselves at this particular time unable to commend the Bill to the House unreservedly. We do recognise, however, that the Bill has considerable merit and I certainly applaud the work which has so clearly been put into its preparation by my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Renton. We are, I need hardly say, in complete sympathy with the need to ensure proper protection for people in their own homes.
From what I have already said, however, it will be apparent that we are not yet as confident as the Bill's sponsors that it has resolved all the difficulties arising in this area. Whether in the course of its passage
1202
through your Lordships' House it can be improved to enable it to do so remains to be seen. For the Government's part, we would certainly not wish to oppose its Second Reading and we shall watch its progress with interest. We shall, I hope, be able to give a more definite indication of our views during later stages of the Bill.
In the meantime, I would repeat our thanks to my noble friends for giving us such a valuable opportunity to discuss these important questions. The debate has provided us with a most helpful indication of feeling in the House. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will certainly take full account of the views that have been expressed in this debate in reaching a conclusion on the course of action that he should follow in this very important matter.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him whether the Scottish Office has produced a similar consultative document, of which we have never heard and which we have not been offered on the little pink slips that we are sent?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the answer is that the work of preparation is going ahead in the Scottish Office but has not yet been completed. The Scottish Office is slightly behind the Home Office on this particular occasion. I hope that the consultation paper will be issued fairly soon.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I must first thank all noble Lords who have taken part and I will try, if I can read my own writing, to answer some of the points raised by noble Lords who have spoken.
The unfortunate part of Mr. Michael Fagan is that what he has done has let the cat out of the bag and the bag is no longer catproof. So by his terrible act, which was so widely publicised, he has changed conditions which have applied heretofore. There was also a slightly unattractive aspect in what happened to Fagan, in that, when the authorities realised that he could not be prosecuted, they tried to throw the book at him; but it was rather a bent book and it missed. Finally, he was sent to a secure mental hospital, which I strongly doubt would have happened had he just been caught trespassing at No 2 the Grove, Upper Sodbury-on-the-Marsh. I believe that would not have happened. This is not to impugn the honesty or integrity of those people who did that but it left that slight impression in my mind.
I believe it is true that society has shown explicit disapproval of that sort of behaviour. My noble friend—and I use that word totally advisedly because he made the nicest remarks about my maiden speech to me—Lord Foot raised the point, which is a very valid point, about showing a need to introduce new criminal offences. This may not be an exact parallel, but some months ago a Bill went through your Lordships' House protecting the rights of trainers on Epsom Downs. It produced a fine of, I think, £50 if people rode their ponies on the trainers' ground. I

1203
suggest to your Lordships that that is a much less serious offence—although admittedly the penalty is not six months' imprisonment or a £1,000 fine—than the offence that I have described, which was committed in the locality of a home by a man who has persistently gone around entering people's houses. It appears that he has been convicted under the Vagrancy Act, and the unlawful purpose that has been construed by the magistrates is that he was likely to cause fear; that was an unlawful purpose. I do not want to go too deep, but I suspect that that might be overthrown on appeal. So there is the danger that on an occasion such as this, there is a temptation to try to find a law that is not there—which carries a greater danger in justice than one relatively simple one.
I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said. He proceeded to go through the Bill and make a lot of, from his point of view, perfectly reasonable drafting points, and said it produced innocent trespass, et cetera. He then proceeded to recommend a far wider offence than he was accusing us of introducing in this Bill. He said that anybody who knowingly goes into a private residence should be guilty of an offence. That is Article 601 of the California Penal Code. I specifically said, and I think my noble friend Lord Renton specifically said, that we do not want to go as far as that. I do not think public opinion would accept that we should go as far as that.
A lot has been made of the effect this is going to have on the police. The police have very wide discretionary powers which they use on a great number of occasions. Several of your Lordships, I would suggest, have been caught in a built-up area going at more than 30 miles an hour and have not been prosecuted. I have a suspicion that that noble Lord who murmured may have been prosecuted. But the police do have discretion not to prosecute, and they use it on the whole very wisely.
The possibility that we should consider legislating for people to have what I may call privileged trespass—in other words the Windsor Castle, 10 Downing Street syndrome or the Russian Embassy syndrome—I think is abhorrent. I think we should not suggest that certain people only should have protection. The protection must be for all, and in a way it is the weaker members of society, the old, the frail and the frightened, who need protection more than somebody who is living in privilege and has the use of guards, et cetera. In no way am I trying to say that what happened at Buckingham Palace was not appalling, because it was appalling. But I think the protection must go to No. 2 The Close, Upper Snodbury, as well as to Buckingham Palace and 10 Downing Street.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell made great play of the fact that Clause 2 contains "metaphysics". I think that was the word he used. I would suggest that the criminal law is full of metaphysical judgments. Danger is something which is a metaphysical judgment. Some people would think riding over large fences when fox hunting is dangerous and some would think it not dangerous. There is an element of judgment that has to me made. When someone is accused of careless driving, "careless" is
1204
not an objective word; you have to make a subjective judgment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Earl only for one purpose. Sitting behind the right reverend Prelate, as he is, is he quite sure that he is correctly using the word "metaphysical"?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, absolutely certainly not. I have always wanted to know what it means. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, used it originally, and I was assuming that it meant what he was talking about—fear, et cetera. If I was using the word "metaphysical" in the wrong sense, of course I apologise to your Lordships. However, I think I have made the point that there are occasions when the criminal law has to make value judgments.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that his and my actions have put the spur to this document. The reason we did not wait until after 3rd May is that it is possible that this is the last moment when a Bill such as this could get on the statute book before the next election—assuming that to be in October or even early in the New Year, but certainly in this Parliament. If as a result of the consultations which arise it is shown that the received view in our approach is totally wrong there is no way that this Bill can become an Act of Parliament. If, however, the consultations show that there is merit and force in the method that we are adopting, then I suggest that this is a helpful move.
We will, of course, listen with great sympathy to any amendments that are put forward within the global context of the Bill. When we come to the definition of private residence—where the clause refers to Inns of Court and research establishments—it seems to me crystal clear, because it says "part of" earlier, that it does not apply to the laboratory, and so on. It applies to the flat where the professor might live. In a school, for example, it applies to the caretaker's flat. In the Inns of Court it applies especially to where my noble friend Lord Renton lives. It applies to the residential part of buildings, which may include all the other things which are left out.
I again thank your Lordships for the attention that you have been kind enough to give me. I thank your Lordships for your comments, and with that I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

The Environment
10.23 p.m.
Lord Ashby Lord Ashby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to introduce the principle of "best practicable environmental option" into their policies for protecting the environment.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this time of the evening I have to begin by thanking your Lordships for remaining in the House. I can be brief because I am really a curtain raiser for my noble friend Lord

1205
Flowers who can speak with much more authority than I on this matter. I am very glad that he has been able to partner me in putting this Question tonight and asking the Government to give some kind of reply.
I shall make only two points. Early in 1974 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, under the chairmanship of my noble friend, decided to study the environmental effects of nuclear power. They had to postpone this because the Secretary of State requested them to make a rush job and to report if possible within a year on this remit:
"To review the efficacy of the methods of control of air pollution from domestic and industrial sources, to consider the relationship between the relevant authorities and to make recommendations".
The reason for the hurry was that the Health and Safety at Work Bill had almost completed its passage through Parliament and one provision in that Bill was to transfer the Alkaline Inspectorate from the Department of the Environment into the newly created Health and Safety Commission to work under the Health and Safety Executive.
The Royal Commission urged the Secretary of State to hold up this transfer until they had reported. This advice was disregarded. When the Royal Commission did report 16 months later, they strongly argued that the Alkali Inspectorate, which by this time had been transferred, should be put back into the Department of the Environment. That was in January 1976, seven years ago. The response from the Government was silence. Despite the Secretary of State's request for a rush job, no comment was made, no action was taken. This was a discourtesy to a Royal Commission on which some Members of your Lordships' House served; but let that pass.
The delay caused unease in other quarters. In July 1981 the Secretary of State received a letter signed by the president of the CBI, the president of the National Society for Clean Air and the president of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. They deplored the fact that the Government had made no reply in five years and they went on to urge the Government to remove the Alkali Inspectorate from the Health and Safety Executive and to bring it back to the Department of the Environment. Eighteen months later, last December, a response from the Government finally came but not in the form of a discussion document. It was in the form of one of the series of technical pollution papers which come from the Department of the Environment, many of them excellent. This was paper No. 18. It reaffirmed the decision to keep the Alkali Inspectorate under the Health and Safety Executive.
Why does it matter that the Alkali Inspectorate, which is now renamed the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate, should not work under the Health and Safety Executive? I suggest that the answer is very simple. To keep it there contradicts a principle of environmental policy which has been painstakingly developed over the last 120 years. The purpose of the first Alkali Act in 1863 was not to protect man from hazards in the environment; it was to protect the environment from hazards caused by man. That has been the principle of the Alkali Inspectorate's work ever since that first Act: to protect the environment—the farms and the woodlands in North-West
1206
England. I am sure that the alkali inspectors will continue, as they have for over a century, to show this concern for the environment as being their prime purpose, but now they have to do it under an organisation which has a totally different and sometimes conflicting purpose. They do at present retain their identity but there are signs that they may slowly become merged into the Factory Inspectorate.
The Royal Commission spelt out the danger of this very clearly indeed, and it is particularly disappointing that this dismissive document has come from the Department of the Environment in this case. Paragraph 254 of the Royal Commission's fifth report makes the point that there may be—indeed, there certainly are—many cases of conflicts of interest between a body whose chief purpose is to ensure safety and health in the working place and a body whose chief purpose is to deal with environmental quality. It is too late now to expect a Government to take the advice of a Royal Commission supported by the presidents of associations dealing with industry, pollution and health, so I make this point only to put on record a widespread dissatisfaction with this decision and with the way in which it was made.
But I have one question to ask. The Department of the Environment, evidently uneasy in its own conscience, has added at the end of Pollution Paper No. 18 an appendix with the title "Memorandum of Understanding". This is a memorandum of understanding between the Department of the Environment and the Health and Safety Commission and its executive. It sets out in a vague sort of way the conditions for co-operation. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this Question to tell the House exactly what is being done under the terms of this memorandum.
I now come to my second point, and it is my last point. It concerns the main recommendation which the commission made in its fifth report. It endorsed the flexible policy which has proved so successful in the control of industrial emissions to the air since 1863: the criterion of using the "best practicable means". The Royal Commission proposed that this principle should now be extended to cover the control of wastes going into water and on to land; indeed, that there should be a policy in Britain of choosing the "best practicable environmental option" rather than just the best practicable means in air, water and land.
How could this be done? It could only be done if there were some small expert body which would act as the Alkali Inspectorate has acted over the control of emissions into air; deciding the strategy for the disposal and recycling of wastes in Britain; deciding whether air, water land was the way in which they should be disposed.
The response to this very imaginative and carefully thought-out recommendation was seven years of silence, broken only by the publication of Report No. 18 last December. In this paper the Government accept the strength of the Royal Commission's argument. The logic, say the Government, is "unassailable"; the Government say that the best practicable environmental option is a concept,
"of considerable power and utility".
Then the government response goes on to suggest that in practice it would not be much use anyway. Let me read the relevant paragraph. It says:
"It is not easy to assess the real benefits that might accrue from its application … there is probably not a large number of situations in which major choices exist in practice regarding the forms in which pollution arises".
This is something very familiar to those of us whose lives have been spent in the academic world. The response—I am far from convinced—means: I cannot find reasons to counter your argument but I propose not to vote for it. It says that there are no real benefits, or very few. Let me give one example.
The alkali inspectors have no legal responsibility or statutory power to exercise the best practicable environmental option, but in fact they are quietly doing so informally. For example, the Bankside and Battersea power stations were formerly washing sulphur dioxide out of their flue gases with water from the river and this was polluting the Thames. In consultation with the Alkali Inspectorate it was decided to abandon this process and to use tall chimneys on the grounds that this would be the better practicable option—neither of them good, but better than polluting the Thames. There are many other cases; for example, the incineration of certain nasty organic materials in which the alkali inspectors have deliberately chosen the best practicable environmental option not requiring people to dump them in the ground where they might be a danger.
It was to develop just such an overall strategy as that, that the Royal Commission made their proposal for Her Majesty's Pollution Inspectorate to determine the strategy. They underlined the fact that this inspectorate would in no way infringe the powers of the regional water authorities or the waste disposal authorities, but would consolidate the strategy of getting the best practicable environmental option. Report No. 18 turns that down. What do they put in its place? I shall read your Lordships their alternative:
"The Government therefore look to all pollution control authorities to take account of the principles enunciated in the Royal Commission's report … The Government will initiate discussions with representatives of the authorities concerned in order to provide a forum for discussion".
It is a pretty example of Whitehall dialect, but hardly the way to ensure a national strategy. It is just as well, for instance, that the Government do not just "look to" the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to co-ordinate their defence policy. Noble Lords will note that the Government say that they "will initiate" discussions, after the commission's report has been in their hands for nearly seven years.
So I ask the noble Lord who will reply: precisely what steps have been taken by the authorities that the Government have already "looked to"? What discussions have been initiated? In brief, what is the Government's policy about protection of the environment? What are their principles when they come to discuss environmental policy with the European Community? These are the questions that I hope will be answered at the end of this discussion.
10.36 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, coming to this scene, I too was a little perturbed at the way in which a very
1208
thoughtful and hard working report was seen to be dismissed after such a long silence, really almost in an off-hand manner. The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, has, I think, highlighted the most important aspects of this. I have one very short question which I should like to put to the Minister. On the planning issues, in paragraph 51 of the response, the Government acknowledge the importance of planning contributions to pollution control, and in paragraph 52 the Government agree about the importance of consultation between planning and pollution control authorities. But they do not consider it necessary that consultation should be mandatory. The Question is: why not? There is no attempt to explain this. It is just brushed aside as a matter of small importance.
Authorities vary widely in their approach to pollution control according to the interests of their members, the training of their staffs and whatever happen to be the economic pressures and the employment pressures in their area at the time. Pollution is not a local problem; it crosses all boundaries, be they political, geographical or physical. To say that there need not even be consultation of all authorities at a regional level is just nonsense. Public disquiet about the long-and short-term effects of pollution is growing and this response does nothing at all to allay the fears. I hope that the Minister in his response to our questions tonight will do something towards that.
10.38 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I hesitate to take part in a debate with two such leading experts on the subject, but I cannot refrain from mentioning one aspect which perhaps is not directly relevant to the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby; but I believe it is something, particularly today, about which we should think. For many years in my own political party I have been interested in environmental questions, and I was delighted when I heard of the setting up of the Royal Commission and when I read its findings. Like other speakers, I have been very depressed at the lack of action by successive Governments since the Royal Commission reported.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, that the Alkali Inspectorate had served this country well and that it should have remained independent of the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate. I think we can give it credit for achieving enormous advances in pollution control in this country. We have managed to create reasonably clean air in this country. We have done it through the high stack policy mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby. But in doing so we have created pollution in other parts of the world. We spent the early part of today on an economic debate on co-operation to get the world out of its economic problems, because we need co-operation, for we are all interdependent. The same applies to the question of cross-boundary pollution over national boundaries—not only over regional boundaries within our country. It is now fairly well known and accepted that the acid rain falling over Scandinavia, and particularly Norway, is to a large extent created in this country. It is estimated that 40 per cent. of the acid rain emanates from Britain and only 10 per cent. emanates from Norway itself, and the rest comes from central Europe.

1209
It is natural in any environmental policy, or policy decisions, first of all to look at one's own country and try to clean up one's own surroundings. We happen to be fortunate in our situation in Europe. We are not exposed to the same pollution from other countries as the people in Scandinavia. We should therefore have a particular responsibility to see that we are not offenders. Despite the Alkali Inspectorate, we have failed to implement solutions that could help the Scandinavians in this way. Technical means are now available to clean air in a different way. The high stack policy has not helped to solve the problem European-wise, although it has helped us. The European Community is an excellent group of nations which can, between them, help to solve the pollution problem in Europe. I want to ask the Government why they are always so reluctant to take part in discussions and accept recommendations which come from the European Commission.
On 15th March an unusal international treaty came into force in the shape of a Geneva convention on transboundary air pollution. I found that out by reading the third leader in The Times. This convention was set up for the purpose of achieving a reduction in the high levels of pollution in rain experienced by some countries in the world. But both Germany and Britain were insistent on watering down what might have been in that international treaty. Britain was reluctant to accept, for instance, that even reports of new installations and of an increase in the sulphur emissions from country to country should be compulsory. In the end I believe it has been agreed to. Germany was equally at fault. But since Germany now has a problem of its own from the acid rain, and the forests of Germany are endangered, they have become more co-operative. This country and this Government should show the rest of Europe that although we do not suffer in this way we are co-operating to the fullest by installing the kind of cleaning arrangements that can now be installed in sulphur-emitting plants.
It is disconcerting, when one's concern is with the environment, to find, first of all, that not only on the international level but also on the national level a report such as the Royal Commission's report has not been taken up and the advice accepted by the Government, particularly that relating to the Alkali Inspectorate and to the best practicable environmental option. One becomes disheartened and feels that the Government are not a hundred per cent. behind an environmental policy for this country and for Europe—and, for that matter, for the world. I hope that the noble Lord will reassure us that Britain will co-operate in the European Community and in the Geneva international treaty.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, will forgive me if I do not follow her speech, except to say how important was the point that she raised about acid rain, but at the same time to add how misleading it is to try to discuss it unless one also refers to the enormous cost of replacing the high-stack policy to which she referred with a policy which removes the sulphur pollutants at source.
1210
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashby for tabling this Question and for setting out so cogently some of the principal recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and for commenting on the Government's disappointing response to them. My noble friend was the founder chairman of that Royal Commission and he enunciated many of the principles that it has tried to follow ever since. It was a tremendous challenge to succeed him as chairman in 1973. It would be even more so today, because in the meantime he has become the leading authority on the history of clean air legislation and on air pollution control. That was, I believe, evident from the way in which my noble friend put his Question.
Briefly, my noble friend's case is that the Government have accepted the objectives set by the Royal Commission but have failed to provide the tools. They have agreed that the concept of "best practicable means", which has served this country so well for the control of air pollution, should now be extended to the "best practicable environmental option" for the unified control of pollution which more generally may affect water and land as well as air. But the Government have denied the means to carry out this generalisation; namely, a unified pollution control inspectorate—Her Majesty's Pollution Inspectorate, as we called it, or HMPI, as it is known for short—under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. That would have been modelled on the highly successful Alkali Inspectorate in the field of air pollution, but with responsibilities extended to cover all forms of emission from works which present difficult problems of pollution control. I shall not spell it out; my noble friend has already done so with great clarity.
Is it not ironic, though, that what we proposed for England and Wales already exists in Scotland, in Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate, as it is called there; and that the Government accept the rightness of these superior arrangements north of the Border, while confidently rejecting them to the South? Do they think that the thistle needs more protection than does the rose, or the leek, or that other countries with their environmental protection agencies have got it wrong? No, I suspect that it was another border that was involved—the border between the local authorities responsible for waste disposal, water quality, and environmental health, and the national inspectorates; the one not wishing to surrender powers to the other, as they may have seen it, despite our efforts in the fifth report to show that there was no real conflict of interest.
The Government wish to replace the unified inspectorate by a vague system of consultation between the various authorities concerned with the determination of the best practicable environmental option. With my noble friend, Lord Ashby, I beg leave to doubt whether that will work, except in trivial cases for which it is not really necessary. But I do not despair; the history of pollution control is a long one. I believe that HMPI may yet have its day when we have more experience of the best practicable environmental option in action, and I was interested to see that the Government leave open that possibility.

1211
I should like to add a few words about standards in the sphere of air pollution, because there has been much confusion about this point, especially in the context of the European Community. Do we want emission standards or air quality standards? Behind that question lies a confusion of means and ends. In the Fifth Report we made a clear distinction between emission to air, which is what goes up the factory chimney or escapes through the roof, and air quality which results from the emission returning to earth. Although the one is obviously the cause of the other, the two should not be confused. The link between them may be difficult to establish in circumstances where the air quality in one locality may result from many sources of emission or may be affected by topography or weather.
The object of air pollution control is to produce an acceptable level of air quality. The means for bringing this about is control of what is emitted from the works and the manner in which it is emitted, such as the chimney height. After exhaustive examination we upheld the Alkali Inspectorate in its determination—and I will quote the famous phrase, if I may—
"to use the best practicable means for preventing the emission into the atmosphere from the premises of noxious or offensive substances and for rendering harmless and inoffensive such substances as may be so emitted."
We pointed out, however, that this presupposes, for example, in determining the height of a chimney, some idea of the levels of air quality desirable on the ground. We did not believe in air quality standards as a means of control, but we put forward the concept of air quality guidelines to indicate whether the practice of best practicable means is falling short of what is desirable by way of air quality or, on the contrary, is subjecting industry to unnecessary restrictions and expense.
There is no paradox here, although I know that it sounds a bit complicated. Adopting the best practicable means implies the control of emissions, and it is expected to take into account economic, social, national and local circumstances. The air quality guidelines are intended as one of the indicators of local circumstances; namely, a measure of the air quality actually being achieved. In no sense, however, should air quality guidelines—or even air quality standards—be confused with emission standards, which have no regard to local circumstances and which are favoured by the European Commission on the grounds that they provide fair competition for industry. They do indeed—but at the expense of quite unfair variations in the local environment. The polluted should be treated fairly as well as the polluters.
We were thus in favour neither of uniform emission standards, nor of air quality standards as a means of control. We favoured control over emissions according to the best practicable means, having regard to the levels of air quality actually achieved relative to those that are desirable for the locality.
I was relieved to find that, broadly speaking, the Government accept the Royal Commission's views about standards and the superiority of best practicable means. Naturally, they have been influenced in their actual response by the Community directives on air
1212
quality. On the whole I would say that in matters of pollution control the United Kingdom and the Community are closer together than was the case 10 years ago, and I am glad if the Royal Commission's efforts have contributed towards that reconciliation, as the Government seem to believe is the case. I also note that it is the Government's intention in the light of these and other developments, and of our more detailed recommendations, to conduct a comprehensive review of air pollution control legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will forgive me if I say, "And about time, too!" Perhaps he will tell us when he hopes that review will be completed.
The Fifth Report makes 94 recommendations, and we cannot deal with the Government's response to them all today, especially at this time of night. The last 20 of them, however, deal with the relationship between pollution control and the planning system, and I should like to say a few words about that. We recommend that local authorities should embody pollution policies in their structure plans and develop them in subject plans; that they should consult with each other in order to establish a broad expertise; that the Government should issue suitable guidance for this purpose and that specific responsibility should be laid on local authorities to conserve and improve the environment.
Once again, broadly speaking, the Government have accepted the principle, but have denied the means to put it into practice. They are apparently willing to issue some guidance to local authorities. They are also in favour of voluntary consultations between all and sundry, but they want nothing to be compulsory, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has already emphasised. Of course, when everybody is behaving intelligently there will be a great deal of voluntary consultation in any case—for instance, between an industrial developer, the local authority in which the development is to take place, and (where appropriate) the alkali inspector.
The question is, what to do when not everybody is behaving intelligently?—and we saw many examples of this in the course of our inquiry. Those were usually the instances that had given trouble. We came across the case—I swear it is true—of a large petrochemical works which, very sensibly, had been built well away from human habitation because of the likelihood of its giving rise to substantial air pollution. Some years later a housing estate was built close to the plant for the convenience of those who worked there. But the pollution turned out to be quite heavy and the eventual occupants of the estate naturally complained about it. There ensued the usual difficulties. We discovered that in the local authority those responsible for housing and those responsible for pollution control had not consulted each other about the housing development. When we asked them why, they replied that there was no regulation that required them to.
I can only hope in these circumstances that the Government's new guidance will be quite precise, because it should not be assumed that it will invariably be accorded intelligent interpretation. In particular, I would have thought that in a case like the one I have just described, a buffer zone around the plant within which consultation had to be compulsory would have

1213
had distinct advantages; but, alas, the Government will have none of that.
A further example of the need for compulsory consultation concerns a district which is approaching its total pollution capacity, perhaps due to the combined emissions of several polluting works—one can think of many examples in the industrialised North. What happens when application is made to develop another polluting works? Especially if air quality standards are imposed, the application must either be rejected or some of the existing works will be put to some trouble and expense to lower their hitherto acceptable emissions to make way for the new development. I am glad to see that the Government recognise that the problem exists, although they appear to deny the means to deal with it.
I will not say any more about the relationship between planning and pollution control. Many of your Lordships will know better than I how complicated the planning system of this country has become. It was one of the wonders of the world when the first Town and Country Planning Act was introduced in 1947. Since then the planning system has had to be adapted and extended to meet many new demands. Pollution control is only one; but both the fifth report and the Government's response to it suggest that all is not well with the planning system.
It may therefore be of some interest that the Nuffield Foundation, of which I am a trustee, has recently announced a major inquiry under my chairmanship into the whole of the town and country planning system—what its objectives were, to what extent they have been achieved, how it has been adapted over the years, what the objectives should now be and whether there should be some consequent revision of legislation. I should be surprised if the Nuffield inquiry does not explore further the interaction between the planning system and pollution control. I would say that the well-tried concept of "best practicable means" is an essential feature of that interaction at present, and that the extended concept of "best practicable environmental option", which I am delighted to know the Government have accepted, will imply a development of that interaction, and perhaps some modification to the planning system itself.
11 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, particularly when one sees his name in large print on the front of the fifth report. Before addressing your Lordships, I consulted the CBI and will give you, as briefly as I may, industry's view of the matter that is the subject of this Question. The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, has explained well the basis of the Question and the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has enlarged on most of the more important points. I shall turn my attention to one or two particular administrative points, upon which industry has a strong view.
But perhaps before doing that, I might give your Lordships industry's view of what is meant by "best practicable environmental option". We do not see it as meaning the best technology or the same technology for one or more similar industrial plants, and the CBI believe that the definition must embrace local environ
1214
mental circumstances, age of plant and financial and economic factors. I am sure that that is the general view, as expressed in the report, but I think it necessary to state it again. Flexibility must be preserved to avoid wasting valuable resources and choices.
The number of processes where removing one form of emission gives rise to another type of waste is clearly large, but these transfers are generally easily managed and do not often require additional expert advice or enforcement. What industry sees is needed, is independent technical advice, embracing all forms of pollution control—and I stress the word "advice". This would help both with any residual problems, as suggested, and with presenting co-ordinated advice to Ministers, to control authorities and to industry. As industry sees it, we do not need a control inspectorate with executive powers solely to oversee the implementation of the "best practicable environmental option", but an advisory body.
As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, the Royal Commission recommended for this sort of purpose a new national pollution inspectorate, which would subsume what was then called the Alkali Inspectorate—now, we understand, called the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate. While agreeing with that, in principle, I suggest an alternative title—to emphasise what I believe to be its main purpose in an advisory role—of the National Pollution Advisory Council. The Royal Commission also advised that what is now the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate be restored to direct control by the Department of the Environment. That has been mentioned by other noble Lords and I strongly support that obviously sensible move. I cannot see why, for all the explanation made, the change was made in the first place.
From that, it is recommended that a small advisory unit be established within the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate, which could form the core of the proposed new National Pollution Advisory Council, together, for example, with an advisory element of the recently proposed Hazardous Waste Inspectorate. I suggest that the size of the National Pollution Advisory Council be kept as small as is consistent with covering all necessary engineering and scientific disciplines; for example, water engineers, industrial engineers, chemists, botanists, meteorologists—you name them, but still keep it small. The council should be established as independently as practicable, and I should have thought it might have been on the lines, as we have been discussing recently, of the new data protection registrar, who is given the maximum possible independence, about whom any of your Lordships who are interested can hear on the Third Reading of the Data Protection Bill tomorrow. This new body should be subject to parliamentary control through the Secretary of State for the Environment. Not only would it provide advice to industry and to Government and to other controlling bodies on the best practicable environmental options in the United Kingdom but it could provide such advice in relation to appropriate EEC proposals and actions.
I agree most strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, that the EEC is all too much neglected in this area and can, in its own way, be a considerable threat to us in proposing unnecessary

1215
actions which are not applicable to this country. The need for such a body appears to be so obvious that I am puzzled about why successive Governmentrs have failed to act on the particularly well informed Fifth Report of the Royal Commission. In this context I would not entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, if I heard him aright, that it is too late to expect the Government to act. The mere fact that we have had to wait for seven years does not mean that the Government will not act. I am sure there are many examples of where a little prodding and pushing gets governments to act, even if the report in question was made more than seven years ago.
My belief is that this delay is perhaps because there have been thought to be no pressing pollution problems in the last few years. But this cannot always be so. Lead in petrol has been mentioned. Acid rain has been mentioned. The dumping of waste at sea and on land also spring to mind. There is no doubt a host of other subjects which might reach more serious levels of importance, for which the Government will need the best co-ordinated and independent advice that they can get. This might apply whether it happens in this country or in the European Community. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will say in reply that action on the lines I have suggested will be looked at with the greatest possible care with a view to its implementation as soon as practicable.
11.7 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that some of the previous speakers took a rather gloomy view of the prospects of getting some movement out of the Government, although I am afraid it would be unrealistic of us to expect very much movement from the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite this evening. However, I certainly agree with Lord Mottistone that this is not something upon which we should give up. The logic of the case is so strong, as the Government themselves admitted in their response, that sooner or later, it seems to me, they will have to give in to it. Indeed, everybody seems to accept that the best practicable environmental option is the most sensible way forward.
The Government's response says that the logic of the approach is unassailable, that the Royal Commission have identified a genuine problem and, indeed, that there are almost certainly cases where the optimum control of pollution from a works has not been realised. Therefore, even if one takes the case on the Government's terms it is an extremely strong one, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, said in opening the debate this evening, the Government's response to this unassailable case is extremely dismissive in the document which they published last year. Indeed, it is not just dismissive of the best practicable environmental option, the concept put forward by the Royal Commission, but, as my noble friend Lady Nicol said, it is extremely dismissive about something which the Government agreed was important; namely, consultation between the planning and pollution control authorities. And in what must be just about the most unsubstantiated assertion ever to appear in a Government document, the same
1216
paragraph, paragraph 52, goes on to state that the Government do not consider it necessary that such consultation should be mandatory. As my noble friend said, there is not a word of explanation of why that should be the case or what the Government intend to do about it in the absence of any mandatory requirement.
It seems to me to be clear that the concept of "best practicable environmental option" is not something that is being argued about, but the means of achieving it, is. The Government's argument seems mainly to be that it will be wrong to change something that was set up in the mid-1970s; a quite extraordinary argument, and one that I do not believe the Government would apply to many other matters on which they have legislated, if indeed they have applied it to anything that was set up in the mid-1970s.
In the foreword, which is in some ways the most interesting if the vaguest part of the document, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr Heseltine, stated that the Government,
"will encourage the various existing pollution control authorities responsible for clean air, rivers and the safe disposal of wastes to land or sea to work together to achieve the best practical environmental option".
How they will achieve that is difficult to discover from the document, unless it is meant to reside in what the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, called the vague appendix. I must say that I could not put my finger on it there. This is in the face of difficulties which the Royal Commission identified in a particularly telling way in paragraph 265 of the Fifth Report, where the Commission said:
"Most of the Alkali Inspectors and Environmental Health Officers we spoke with had no contact with their opposite numbers in water and waste disposal authorities, nor had they recognised the need for it. An argument they advanced in discussion on this matter made a virtue of this lack of contact".
It is not just that there is no contact but that the people concerned actually think it is a good thing that there is no contact. In the light of that attitude of those on the ground, the Government seem to be relying on exhortations contained in a foreword written by the then Secretary of State—and clearly, that cannot be good enough. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, replies to this debate he will be able to take matters a little further in that respect than does the Government's response.
Reading what the Royal Commission had to say about this, it seemed to me rather as if the Government were suggesting that it would he a good idea when a firm came to the Government with a new project—let us say for opening a new factory involving a multinational based in another country—for the Government to deal with this by telling the firm, "Go to the Department of Employment and discuss your manpower requirements. Go to the Department of Industry and discuss industry schemes and what is available in terms of investment. Go to the Department of the Environment and elsewhere to discuss planning and other matters. But we will make sure that none of these departments speaks to each other. None of them will consult with each other. Indeed, we see it as a positive advantage that they do not, because then the multinational will bid one department against another, in the hope of getting a better deal; this is a sensible way of dealing with the

1217
matter". Clearly it would not be a sensible way of dealing with the matter in that case; and clearly it is not in the case of the problems identified by the Royal Commission.
I want briefly to take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, about acid rain. I noted, again, that in the foreword, written by the then Secretary of State, contained this statement:
"We no longer face acute air pollution in the United Kingdom but we still have significant problems".
I place emphasis on the words "in the United Kingdom" because it does seem that there is now increasing concern in Europe, if not in this country, and certainly among many of those concerned with the environment, about the problem of acid rain. It seems to me that were the "best practicable environmental option" approach to be adopted, and were the Government to provide the means to ensure that it could be, this should include looking at problems created in other countries as well as making a sensible balance, as the Royal Commission suggested, between problems that might be created by disposing of waste in one way rather than in another; in the air rather than in the river, or what-have-you.
If there is not to be a unified inspectorate, I wonder who is going to do this. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, mentioned the enormous cost of dealing with the problem, and clearly it would be expensive. But at the moment we have not even reached the point of working on the cost. I hope the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will confirm this. As I understand it, no one is obliged at the moment to consider the effects on other countries outside the United Kingdom. The memorandum which is in the appendix to the Government's response does not seem to me to make any reference to this, and one would have thought, given the controversy and the hot water which the Government have managed to get this country into over this issue, that that might be something which could be referred to in the memorandum.
On this issue, this country, I believe, is now seen as one of the worst air polluters in Europe—certainly the least caring. It is seen by many people as being largely responsible for the lack of progress in Europe, and, at home, by those who are concerned about it, it is seen simply as interested in cutting the research budgets of those who would be doing work on this in this country, rather than, as it should be, increasing those budgets. I hope the noble Lord, if he cannot go further than the vague and inadequate Government response to the Fifth Report of the Royal Commission, will at least be able to give us some information about what the Government are doing to deal with the problems of acid rain which the noble Baroness and others have referred to.
11.16 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, at this time of night I feel, not for the first time, as though I am answering an examination paper set by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, after having completed five years of tutorial on Sub-Committee G by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby. However, I am delighted to have this opportunity to respond for the Government to the important points made by various noble Lords about the Government's
1218
response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's Fifth Report on Air Pollution Control.
I think that this is quite important because we are talking about a very specific subject. This is the first occasion when the subject has been debated in your Lordships' House, or indeed in another place, since our response was published last December. This Fifth Report was as clear and unequivocal as the Royal Commission's seven other most authoritative reports to date. It was unfortunate that, for reasons at least partly beyond the control of this Administration, the Government response took so long to prepare. Virtually every noble Lord has commented on this. I hope that they will believe me when I say that we regret this as much as they do. But I can assure the House that we have not simply put the reports to one side to gather dust on the shelf.
The recommendations made in all the reports of the Royal Commission can be relied upon to go to the very heart of our systems of pollution control. They have required careful consideration and much discussion and consultation with other interested departments. In the case of the Fifth Report there was, as we know, a change of Government at about the time when a response might have been expected. I hope that noble Lords will feel that our prolonged deliberations have eventually been worthwhile, Nonetheless I do, of course, accept that they have taken too long.
In our response we were able to accept a great many of the recommendations which the Commission had made. In particular, we welcomed its support for the basic features of our system of air pollution control—namely, the "best practicable means" principle, and that for maintaining a sensible division of responsibilities between local authorities and a central inspectorate. And we endorsed enthusiastically the emphasis on the need for an open-minded approach to pollution control, in which pollution control authorities would seek to achieve the "best practicable environmental option" for the disposal of pollutants. Indeed, in his foreword to the Government response, the then Secretary of State for the Environment—who, I must say, has been slightly maligned this evening—highlighted this as the most important contribution of the report. Clearly then there is nothing between the Government and the Commission in terms of the overall objective. The difference lies in the means to be adopted to achieve that end.
It was the specific organisational proposals which caused us some difficulty. We fully accept that there are cases where the reduction of pollution in one form can give rise to an unacceptable increase in another—for example, if a requirement for a solid smokeless fuel plant to reduce its pollution of the atmosphere is met at the expense of an even less tolerable effluent flow to a river. But, having considered the issue very carefully, we decided against setting up a central inspectorate to prevent such things from happening. Our response set out in detail the reasons for this. They boil down to four.
First, we are not convinced that the extent to which there is a real choice between methods of disposing of pollutants is sufficient to warrant the establishment of a new tier of administration. We recognise that it is technically possible to dispose of many pollutants in various ways. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers,

1219
mentioned the disposal of sulphur. These ways can be to land, water or air. But the decision is often dictated by the nature of the local—and I stress the word "local"—receiving environment. This is not to say that, where a choice does exist, no action should be taken. As I have stressed, we strongly support the principle of best practicable environmental option, and I shall explain how we propose to carry the approach forward.
Secondly, the Royal Commision's proposed solution was a central inspectorate with the emphasis on the "central". We consider that the situations where a choice of routes for pollution disposal exists are essentially matters for local decision—indeed the BPEO solution to a pollution problem in one area may not be the same as it is for a similar problem in another.
Thirdly, there are already in existence a large number of local panels or committees which provide precisely the sort of co-ordinating function which the Royal Commission has indicated is lacking in many areas. The Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate, for instance, is represented on such local committees up and down the country, of which the most well-known example is perhaps the Coventry Pollution Prevention Panel. We feel that bodies such as these are best placed to make decisions about BPEO in given circumstances, although it is of course important that their membership is broad enough to represent adequately all the relevant interests.
Finally, the existing organisational arrangements for pollution control have only recently become fully established. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says about Governments of a different persuasion overturning the decisions of other Governments, in this particular case we do want to give them a chance to work.
It has never been the policy of this Government to have a centralist control body of the sort that we understand is suggested, but I freely admit, on consideration of tonight's debate, that we may have got it wrong. We shall have to consider the speeches made by noble Lords tonight with great care. When we read the Royal Commission's report we had more than an impression that there was suggested in it a centralist control body. We do not feel that the report makes a good enough case for this as yet, if indeed that is what it intended to do.
That is why we announced in our response our intention to initiate discussions with the pollution control authorities in the first instance. This, I am glad to say, is well under way. We have been in touch with the local authority associations, the National Water Council, and the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate. I am delighted to say that the responses received so far are unanimous in welcoming the conclusions of the Fifth Report, and specifically the principle of best practicable environmental option. But they have also pointed out that, although important in principle, the option approach may be of comparatively limited application in practice.
The next step will be for a meeting, which I hope can be arranged in the near future, where the different options for co-ordination can be discussed at greater
1220
length. I should tell my noble friend Lord Mottistone that we shall naturally also be involving industrial interests in our discussions before reaching a final decision. I have good reason to believe that a practical consensus will emerge from the discussions. I think we would all agree that we should not try to achieve any objective by rigorous central control, with all the shadowy remoteness that it inevitably implies, when the same goal can be achieved by voluntary local co-operation. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, cast some doubt on whether this was a feasible possibility. The Government are determined to try. We have not in our reply, or our reply this evening, firmly closed the door on what the Royal Commission was suggesting.
Pollution control is a prime example of the sort of problem where the local man really is in a better position to judge what is right for a particular area than the expert, however well-qualified, who spends his days in a tower block in the centre of London or wherever. The former can see what is best for the local environment, and he or she, I would suggest, is far more likely to get it right.
I note that the form of the Question before us asks how we propose to introduce the best practicable environmental option into our policies for protecting the environment. I have concentrated in my response so far on the application of the option to pollution control, but I am sure that all noble Lords who have spoken will agree that we should endeavour to bring this approach to all aspects of the environment. We try hard to do this, believe it or not. I cite as my example the original decision on Belvoir last year, which seems to me to have exactly that approach in mind. But the Royal Commission report has given the concept authority, and I am sure that it will become of much wider application in our policies generally. The pollution control authorities have already drawn attention to the point and it is among the subjects which we shall be discussing with them shortly.
The matter of the review of air pollution control legislation is very much in the minds of all of us. Noble Lords who have spoken in this debate will need no reminding about the complexities here. We have not only to consider the adequacy of our national legislation, in particular in relation to the powers of local authorities; we have also to consider the arrangements for control in the United Kingdom in relation to new requirements emerging from Brussels, a question which has been raised this evening. You may be reassured, my Lords, that we instigated this review on publication of the Government's response to the Royal Commission's Fifth Report and are pressing on with all due speed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, has told us that the Alkali Inspectorate was transferred to the Health and Safety Executive in 1975. We recognise that emissions from scheduled processes can be damaging to the environment, but there is no question of the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate acting in total isolation from the Department of the Environment or contrary to its wishes. The inspectorate is physically located in Romney House, the same building as most of the Department of the Environment officials who are concerned with air pollution policy. There is frequent contact between the two, and the definition of responsibilities that relate to their air pollution

1221
functions has now been formally set out in a memorandum of understanding appended to the Government response. The inspectorate serve the Secretary of State for the Environment in relation to the wider environment, as well as the Health and Safety Commission in relation to the work place and its immediate surrounding.
We think it desirable that the professional groups that deal with industrial health and safety should work as far as possible within a common organisation. It makes it easier to establish a consistent basis for pollution control both inside and outside a works. We regard this as a convincing argument for retaining the present arrangements, underpinned, as I said, by the new memorandum.
The problem of acid rain was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, this is of course a truly international problem, not least because all countries emit sulphur and most countries have their own air, as it were, polluted by emissions from other countries. The Government are participating actively in the work of the Geneva Convention and work in the Community to develop effective and equitable solutions to the acid rain problem.
I mentioned rather sketchily the Memorandum of Understanding referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby. The memorandum is governing relations between the Government and the inspectorate itself. The commission have consulted environment Ministers about their plans. As I have already said, the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate is located in the same building as the Air Policy Directorate of the Department of the Environment. Frequent contacts and exchange of views between the Department of the Environment inspectorates therefore can and do take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, in introducing his Question this evening, I felt answered the Question himself. The Alkali Inspectorate has for years been practising "quietly"—his own words, not mine—what the Royal Commission have been asking for in this report. So we do not need a new body, whether advisory or otherwise, for this purpose. But the question is rather whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has said, we can really rely on local co-operation. As I have said, we shall see.
I was also asked what steps have been taken by the bodies consulted on the "best practicable environmental option". I regret that I cannot report on any tonight, not because no steps have been taken but because these will be spoken about in the discussions which I have already announced are about to be forthcoming. I would not like to prejudice anything along those lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who knows—although he may have forgotten—the Department of the Environment rather better than I do, will know that, so far as international affairs and pollution are concerned, we have a branch concerned with international relations in environmental matters. Countries rarely take account of pollution in other countries. This problem is at the centre of a number of Community arguments, and there have in the past
1222
been many in Sub-Committee G, and I have no doubt that there will be many more to come.
In conclusion, may I say that this has been an excellent debate on a subject which we can ill afford to overlook. The Royal Commission have made a valuable contribution to this and, like the Royal Commission, we in Government are determined to make a success of the "best practicable environmental option". We differ from them only on the means to achieve that end. As our response makes clear, and as (if I have done nothing else this evening) I have made clear, we have not finally closed the door on their preferred solution, but we feel that we may have found a better way.
I have no doubt that this subject will arise in your Lordships' House before very much longer, and that I or one of my noble friends will be asked to report on this well within the next five years.
Lord Flowers: My Lords before the noble Lord sits down, would he agree with me that the unified inspectorate proposed in the fifth report was modelled very closely on the working practices of the Alkali Inspectorate, which, centralised or otherwise, in principle has as its most important officers the individual alkali inspectors in the field who operate with a very considerable amount of authority, and therefore in a rather decentralised way?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, but they have, if you like, a decentralised approach from a central body which is already in existence. What I am still not convinced about is whether we need a new central body as well as the Alkali Inspectorate.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before midnight.

  POLICE TRAINING: WORKING PARTY REPORT
  POLICE TRAINING: WORKING PARTY REPORT
  HONG KONG: TRANSIT CAMPS
  HONG KONG: TRANSIT CAMPS
  INDONESIA: ARMS SALES
  INDONESIA: ARMS SALES