Sitting of 29 March 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  COMMONS REGISTRATION (GLAMORGAN) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1981–82
  Account ordered,
  of the Contingencies Fund, 1981–82, showing:—

  (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1982;

  (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Cope.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Raceasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now answer parliamentary questions on the number of nuclear warheads possessed by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, respectively.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the numbers of Russian nuclear missile warheads targeted on western Europe.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): It has not been the practice of the United Kingdom, United States or Soviet Governments to reveal the numbers of nuclear warheads in their stockpiles. Comparisons of the numbers of nuclear delivery systems deployed by NATO and the Soviet Union are set out in figure 7 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1982". We estimate, however, that in the intermediate range alone the Soviet Union possesses 351 SS20 missiles with 1,053 warheads, and that approximately two thirds of these face western Europe, together with about 250 warheads on the older SS4 and SS5 missiles.
    Mr. Race: Is it not one of the Secretary of State's basic functions to hide the truth from the people? Given the answer that he has just provided, is it not true that he has neglected the fact that there is already massive overkill among the nuclear super powers and that, taking all warheads together—strategic, theatre and tactical—the West has the majority of warheads? If those facts were known, would not more people join the CND than ever before?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman believes that we live in a society that tries to hide the facts from the people. He must be fully aware that only three and a half years ago his party was in full possession of all the information that is available to me and believed categorically then that it was necessary to have nuclear weapons and to modernise them.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the past five years the number of Russian nuclear warheads targeted on western Europe has increased by 400 and that during a similar period there has been a reduction on our side of no fewer than 1,000? Is not cruise a replacement for more obsolete weapon systems as well as a response to the deployed SS20s?
    Mr. Heseltine: I confirm that the Americans have withdrawn 1,000 nuclear warheads from Europe during the period to which my hon. Friend referred. Without matching the figure of 400 that he mentioned, I can tell him that since March 1982, 54 SS20s have become operational at six completed bases. The cruise missile system is to be deployed in western Europe in response to the large number of SS20 missiles that have been deployed and face this country.
    Mr. Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop dodging the question? If one takes strategic and theatre

    165
    nuclear weapons together, in terms of targeted warheads has not the West more than the Soviet Union? Will he answer that question? Will he deny those facts if they are not true?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that all these matters are the subject of discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—at the disarmament talks which are proceeding and which we support strongly. If the Soviet Union is genuinely interested in reducing the numbers of those warheads, it is the Western powers' priority to achieve that aim.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not contemptible and immoral for the Labour party to say, as it does in "Labour's Plan", that it is not opposed to the existing Alliance, but wishes to abandon nuclear defence? Is it not utterly contemptible that it is prepared to accept the protection of the American deterrent, but is opposed to the British deterrent?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised a critical issue, about which we have far greater information today with the publication of the latest defence statement of the Labour party. Broadly, it says that it wishes to undermine the basic defence policy that has guaranteed the peace of western Europe for the past 37 years. It wishes to see the end of the NATO Alliance. It wishes to remove Polaris—
    Dr. McDonald: No.
    Mr. Heseltine: Yes. The words for which I search say that the Labour party wishes to see—[Interruption.] I have not found the words, but they are in the document that has been handed to me. The Labour party wishes to see the end of the NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact Alliance. I have now found the words. It says:
    "The ultimate objective of a satisfactory relationship in Europe is the mutual and concurrent phasing out of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact."
    The idea that this country's defence policy can depend upon support from NATO, which is supposed not to have nuclear support from this country, is incredible and would lead to the disintegration of the NATO Alliance. The Labour party—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is too long an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I must tell the House that if there are to be long supplementary questions I shall call only one hon. Member and move on, because long questions are not fair to others whose names are on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Instead of indulging in his normal politics of gimmickry, the Secretary of State should brief himself properly before he comes to the House. He will know, or his civil servants will tell him, that the last Labour party conference voted overwhelmingly, by more than a two thirds majority, to stay in NATO. Is not the important fact that the Soviet Union and the Western Alliance could destroy each other 50 times over with the warheads that they now possess and that the real priority—I am sorry that the Secretary of State is so insensitive to this—is to freeze nuclear weapons and reduce them so that the world can become safer and saner?
    Mr. Heseltine: If the real priority is to reduce nuclear weapons, why did the Labour Government, four or five
    166
    days before polling day, say that it was essential to maintain nuclear deterrence and to modernise the weapons systems we had?
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the deployment by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons in central Europe.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons deployed on each side in Europe.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker): NATO maintains a range of nuclear forces geared to the Alliance's strategy of flexible response. At present the Warsaw Pact has approximately 650 short-range nuclear missiles and about 300 nuclear-capable artillery tubes deployed in Europe. NATO has 100 comparable missiles and about 1,000 nuclear-capable artillery tubes. The Alliance is currently examining the size of its nuclear stockpile in Europe with a view to ensuring that the size of the stockpile is set at the minimum level consistent with effective deterrence.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that a NATO commander recently said that those battlefield weapons were obsolete, dangerous and unusable? Therefore, would it not be sensible to remove them as a step towards attaining a nuclear-free Europe?
    Mr. Blaker: I do not know to which NATO commander the hon. Gentleman is referring. I do not know of any authoritative statement to that effect. However, it is true that the Alliance is examining its stockpile of battlefield nuclear weapons to see whether they are all necessary.
    Mr. Meacher: Is it not the case that those large numbers of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons deployed throughout central Europe could be used outside direct political control in the event of a breakthrough by Warsaw Pact conventional forces? Does not that pose by far the greatest threat of an outbreak of an uncontrolled nuclear escalation in Europe? What steps is the Minister taking, together with the Foreign Office, to bring about negotiations on the withdrawal of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons to complement the START and INF talks that are taking place in Geneva?
    Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman's first premise is wrong. Those weapons could not be used without political control. With regard to a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 1 March about the consideration that we are giving to that proposal and the disadvantages that we see in it.
    Sir Neil Marten: If the West has withdrawn 1,000 missiles, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said, how many have the Russians withdrawn?
    Mr. Blaker: As far as I know, none, Sir.
    Mr. Denzil Dailies: Is not the real problem that the NATO strategy of first use of nuclear weapons, which is what it is, is totally unrealistic? Should not the Government, instead of engaging in attacks on people who are campaigning for peace, campaign within NATO to

    167
    eliminate the battlefield nuclear weapons and move away from the policy of first strike to a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Blaker: I shall amend the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir N. Marten) and add that the Soviet Union has withdrawn some of its more obsolete weapons, but has replaced them with more modern ones. With regard to no first use of nuclear weapons, we have a much better policy, which is no first use of any weapon, nuclear or conventional. We shall never use any weapon unless we are attacked. We are a defensive Alliance and threaten nobody. The Soviet Union's declaration about no first use of nuclear weapons in part reflects the Soviet Union's confidence in its superiority in conventional weapons, and, what is more, it is unverifiable.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the reason why NATO deployed tactical nuclear weapons in western Europe was that the Soviet Union had a predominance of 3:1 in armour, a massive number of artillery weapons, and had organised its defence industry on a war footing? If the Soviet Union wishes to see a better understanding between East and West, perhaps it could scale down the size of its conventional forces deployed in Europe.
    Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures have frequently been quoted in the House. The Soviets have, in addition, overwhelming superiority in intermediate range nuclear forces.

    Type 23 Frigate
    Sir Patrick Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report the progress of the design for the type 23 frigate.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Stewart): I have nothing to add to the reply that my predecessor gave to my hon. Friend on 16 November 1982.
    Sir Patrick Wall: Will my hon. Friend at least assure the House that those vessels will be armed with both surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles as well as the helicopter and towed arrays? Are the lightweight Sea Dart and the lightweight Sea Wolf being considered for those vessels?
    Mr. Stewart: In the debate in December last year my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Sir J. Nott) gave a list of the weapons systems which the ship would carry. I have nothing to add to the information that he gave at that time.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is it true, as is rumoured, that the prototype type 23 sank?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to.
    Mr. Jay: Would it not be more sensible to use our money to re-equip our Navy properly than to lend our money to the Argentines to re-equip theirs?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House last week to hear the effective answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when that point was raised. The very stringent conditions that
    168
    are attached to international loans will make it more difficult, not easier, for the Argentines to spend money on offensive weapons. With regard to the equipment of the Royal Navy, I am glad to say that the type 23 and other ships that we now have in design and on order w ill improve our capability.
    Mr. Viggers: Can my hon. Friend bring us up to date on the trials of the broader shorter hull, as opposed Ito the narrower longer hull, particularly in view of the interest that has been expressed in the concept of the broader shorter hull in the United States?
    Mr. Stewart: I have, indeed, learnt of the new design that is under consideration for the United States Navy. With regard to alternatives for the type 23, the opportunity has been given to Thornycroft Giles and Associates to validate some proposals for a new design along those lines, but work is still in progress and no submission has yet been made to the Ministry of Defence about it.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings have taken place between officials from his Department and officials representing the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe to discuss British military assistance to that country since April 1980; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): We have been providing military assistance to Zimbabwe for the past three years in support of efforts to secure a peaceful and stable future for that country. This has involved frequent contacts with members and representatives of the Zimbabwe Government.
    Mr. Proctor: In the light of the attacks in Zimbabwe on the free press, the moves by Mr. Mugabe towards a one party state, and the murderous attempts on Zimbabweans, black and white, in Matabeleland, will my right hon. Friend reconsider giving further British military aid to that country?
    Mr. Wiggin: I must say to my hon. Friend that the points that he raises are not for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. With regard to British military aid, the troops that we have been training have not been involved in any of these disgraceful episodes.
    Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister agree that as long as there is a serious military threat to Zimbabwe from South Africa it is reasonable that we should give military assistance to that country?
    Mr. Wiggin: The object of providing military assistance to Zimbabwe is well known to the hon. Gentleman and has very little to do with his question.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: What serious evidence can my hon. Friend offer the House to show that the provision of either military or economic aid to Zimbabwe is likely to mitigate, or has mitigated in any serious way, the consequences of the rapid retreat from the Lancaster House agreement? If it has not mitigated those consequences, in what way is the continued provision of either military or economic assistance said to be in the interests of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Wiggen: I dealt with that in my former answer. The questions that my hon. Friend raises are not for me. The British advisors have competently and capably trained a part of the Zimbabwean army to lead to an orderly future for that country. The problems being encountered are, unfortunately, due to those parts of the army that were trained by the North Koreans.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that those of us who have been fortunate enough to see and meet members of the British military mission in Zimbabwe have been impressed by their work and by the obvious support that they have received from the Zimbabwean Government? Is he further aware that anything that can be done to maintain stability in central Africa and provide a buffer against aggression from South Africa, and with which this country can be associated, is to be welcomed?
    Mr. Wiggin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. Of course, we do these jobs extremely well, as the world knows. The hon. Gentleman's congratulations to our forces are well deserved and I shall see that they are drawn to their attention.

    Hovercraft
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to place any orders for hovercraft in their minehunting capacity as recently demonstrated to the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: We have no present plans to do so, but we are considering running on the BH7 hovercraft for further trials.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that mine detection and mine hunting and destroying are important matters, for which the Government need to step up our protection? Is he aware that for about 12 years we have been conducting trials with the BH7, which is a project of great importance to the economy of my constituency? Is it not about time that we placed some firm orders?
    Mr. Stewart: I recognise the importance of taking counter measures against mines, particularly since I served in minesweepers for a considerable period. I am awaiting an evaluation of the performance of the hovercraft in the trials that have recently taken place, and we will be considering our proposals at that stage.

    Nimrod Aircraft
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any further plans to purchase Nimrod aircraft.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): There are no plans to place orders for further Nimrods at present.
    Mr. Arnold: The Royal Air Force will be 65 years old this weekend. What better way of honouring that anniversary than for my hon. Friend to make a commitment to the cost of starting up the production line for Nimrods, which would help not only the RAF but potential export customers?
    Mr. Pattie: As my hon. Friend knows, the reopening of the production line for Nimrod is primarily a matter for British Aerospace. We are awaiting proposals from British Aerospace and I hope that they will be forthcoming quite soon.
    Mr. Dalyell: With their twin Marconi AD 470 high frequency transceivers, could not Ascension based Nimrods pick up the coded messages between the Argentine mainland and the Belgrano and her escorts? With their encryption facilities, could they not send coded in-flight messages to the British Prime Minister, and was it not partly through Nimrod that the Prime Minister knew perfectly well what the orders were from the mainland to the Belgrano before she gave the orders to HMS Conqueror to torpedo her?
    Mr. Pattie: No.
    Mr. Dalyell: It is a lie.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agreeߞ
    Mr. Dalyell: That is a lie.
    Sir Hector Monro—that the Nimrod is now an outstanding maritime aircraft, particularly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) repeat the word "lie". He must now withdraw it.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Minister was misleading the House of Commons.
    Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman withdrawn the word "lie"?
    Mr. Dalyell: Certainly. I withdraw the word "lie". The Minister was misleading the House of Commons.
    Mr. Speaker: That is enough. I call Sir Hector Monro.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Nimrod is an outstanding maritime patrol aircraft, particularly now that it has an air fueling capability? Does he also agree that the Shackelton has done magnificent service but is now becoming obsolescent? How long will it be before they are all retired?
    Mr. Pattie: I believe my hon. Friend knows that we have plans to replace the Shackleton AEW squadron with the Nimrod AEW squadron in about two years from now.

    Sea King Helicopter
    Mr. Conlanasked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in his consideration of a possible successor for the Sea King helicopter.
    Mr. Pattie: Joint definition studies of the Anglo-Italian EH 101 anti-submarine warfare helicopter are complete. Industry foresees good sales prospects for commercial versions of EH 101, and we plan to move ahead with a fully integrated naval and commercial programme. Detailed arrangements are now being finalised and it is hoped to launch full development this summer.
    Mr. Conlan: I welcome that reply, but will the Minister ensure that the defence proportion of the development costs are made available to Westlands as they are required? Does he recognise that failure to do so will make the British forces dependent upon American equipment, which will have a severe effect upon the balance of purchases of defence equipment between the two countries?
    Mr. Pattie: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence is one of the six active partners in this project. The first requirement is for the number of aircraft that would be required for the Royal Navy, so there is no question of a purchase from the United States.
    Mr. Peyton: While I welcome my hon. Friend's reply on this important project, which is of great significance to my constituents, may I ask what progress is being made by the Italian Government in their handling of this matter?
    Mr. Pattie: The Italian Government are taking through their Parliament a law that will provide the necessary funds for the Italian Ministry of Defence contribution, the contributions of Italian industry and the Italian Department of Industry having already been secured.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: As someone with an equal constituency interest in the success of the Sea King, may I ask whether my hon. Friend accepts that we all know that we have a winner? Even if the Italian Government are, to say the least, tardy in completing their part, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government accept that they have a winner and that they will go ahead with it, whatever the cost?
    Mr. Pattie: I welcome my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the project, which of course I share. We have no reason to doubt the commitment of the Italian Government to the project. Both Governments foresee a market, on both the military and the civil side, for several hundred units.

    Arms Sales
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the countries to which the United Kingdom has sold arms since May 1979.
    Mr. Pattie: Yes, Sir. I shall arrange for the information to be published.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister ensure that Argentina is included, because British manufacturing industry and others involved in weapons manufacture are providing components for the French Exocets and the German frigates? Does he admit that, since Argentina has run short of money, the Tory Government have, through the British banks, allocated hundreds of millions of pounds to enable that country to buy the Exocets and frigates so that it can play further war games with British lives in the Falklands and elsewhere?
    Mr. Pattie: I have told the hon. Gentleman that the list will be published. He must wait and see what countries are included. As there are 84 countries, I should be surprised if Argentina were not among them—as it was while the Labour Government whom he supported were in office.
    Mr. Churchill: Before disposing by sales overseas of the third of a million or more self-loading rifles belonging to the British Army that are becoming obsolescent, will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that in the event of a future crisis barely 1 per cent, of the population of these islands will have a weapon available to them? Will he give careful consideration to the recent proposals advanced by General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley and Lord Hill-Norton for the formation on a large scale of a volunteer home defence force?
    Mr. Pattie: It is not the Government's intention to dispose of surplus self-loading rifles overseas.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition will have no part in a suggestion by superannuated old brass-hats for a home guard? Will the
    172
    hon. Gentleman publish in the Official Report a list of long-term commercial agreements with countries supplying arms to Argentina that the Government feel it is still necessary to fulfil?
    Mr. Pattie: We have plans to publish only those agreements of which the defence sales organisation has had official notification and for which export licensing arrangements are required.
    Following is the information:
    List of countries with which contracts for defence equipment were signed since May 1979
    Attached is a list of 84 countries with which contracts for military equipment were signed since May 1979 and which were notified to the Ministry of Defence. As such, the list, though substantially correct, may not be comprehensive, because not all private orders, particularly those of a minor nature, have to be notified to defence sales organisation. All exports of military equipment as defined in group 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order are, of course, carefully controlled, and subject to the granting of an export licence by the Department of Trade.

    Abu Dhabi (UAE)

    Algeria

    Angola

    Argentina*

    Australia

    Austria

    Bahamas

    Bangladesh

    Barbados

    Belgium

    Belize

    Botswana

    Brazil

    Brunei

    Cameroon

    Canada

    Chile

    Colombia

    Denmark

    Dominican Republic

    Dubai

    Ecuador

    Egypt

    Finland

    France

    Greece

    Grenada

    Guyana

    India

    Indonesia

    Iran

    Iraq

    Irish Republic

    Israel

    Italy

    Jamaica

    Japan

    Jordan

    Kenya

    Kuwait

    Lebanon

    Lesotho

    Liberia

    Libya

    Malagasy

    Malawi

    Malaysia

    Netherlands

    New Zealand

    Niger

    Nigeria

    Norway

    Oman

    Pakistan

    Panama

    Peoples Republic of China

    Peru

    Philippines

    173

    Portugal

    Romania

    Qatar

    Saudi Arabia

    Seychelles

    Singapore

    Somalia

    South Korea

    Spain

    Sri Lanka St. Vincent Sudan

    Surinam

    Swaziland Sweden

    Switzerland Syria

    Thailand

    Trinidad and Tobago

    Tunisia

    United States of America

    Uganda

    Venezuela

    West Germany

    Yugoslavia

    Zimbabwe

    * Embargo imposed following the invasion of the Falkland Islands now prohibits the delivery of any military equipment from the United Kingdom to Argentina.

    NATO (Maritime Contribution)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the United Kingdom can continue to make an effective maritime contribution to the Alliance in and out of area.
    Mr. Heseltine: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that in addition to NATO assigned roles, tactical exercises and operational weapons trials, the Navy is committed in the south Atlantic, to the Gulf patrol and to the Gibraltar and Belize guardships at a time when he is running down the Navy? Is he aware that the forces committed to Germany are absorbing a growing percentage of our defence costs—as much as 50 per cent. by the late 1980s? Is he quite sure that he has his priorities right?
    Mr. Churchill: And the Opposition want to cut defence by a third.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) raises a number of important priorities for the Royal Navy. They have been carefully weighed in the overall priority of the Government's defence policy. Within the context of what we can afford, we are making a real contribution to the Royal Navy. For example, last year more money was spent on new construction for the Royal Navy than at any time during the past 19 years. There are now some 34 ships in the process of construction.
    Sir Patrick Wall: As there is a grave shortage of escort vessels, will my right hon. Friend undertake not to scrap, but to mothball, frigates until the type 23 frigates are in commission?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend must realise that in the end there comes a point in the life of a frigate when it must be scrapped. We have taken a decision to run on rather longer than was first intended the TRIBAL class frigates that were brought out of mothballing for the Falklands exercise.
    Dr. McDonald: How can the Minister give those assurances when he knows full well that on present plans the Navy will fall below strength by 1990? Does he admit that it will not be able to fulfil all its roles because the Government are determined to have Trident at any cost, and especially at the cost of our conventional defences?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady should consider that question carefully—especially today, when the Labour policy that has been announced will have the effect of reducing the annual defence expenditure of Britain by £4,500 million, which more than exceeds the cost of running the whole of the Royal Navy for a year.

    Frigates
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to announce the placing of further orders for new frigates for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: It is our intention to place an order for the type 23 first of class next year. With regard to the batch III type 22 frigates, design work is well advanced at Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd. and we hope to go out to competitive tender for the fourth Falklands replacement ship shortly. We would then intend to place an order as soon as tenders have been evaluated.
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that delay continues to cause anxiety, especially for the Vosper Thornycroft shipyard at Woolston? Is he aware that that shipyard has the best export record for naval ships in the whole of British Shipbuilders? If it does not soon receive an order for a metal hull it will be unable to fulfil its historic role as a lead yard supplying the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Stewart: The order for a warship comes at a late stage in the procurement process. I do not accept my hon. Friend's comments about the delay. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence said in December that Vosper Thornycroft would be one of two shipyards that would be strong contenders for the fourth replacement frigate. It is for that yard to put in an irresistible tender if it wants the order.
    Mr. Douglas: Can the Minister say at which yard the type 23 order will be placed? Is he aware that yards on the Clyde are running short of work? When equipment for the type 23 is being considered, will he have a voice and view about export orders being achieved, especially for the ESM equipment?
    Mr. Stewart: It will be satisfactory if export orders can be obtained. We always take that important factor into account.
    It is usual for contracts for ships such as the type 23 to be placed with the design yard, which, in this case, is Yarrow Shipbuilders.
    Mr. Viggers: Is it the Government's policy to continue with the idea of having three designated warship builders as lead yards? If no order is placed soon with Vosper Thornycroft, it will not be possible for it to maintain its specialist design and construction team.
    Mr. Stewart: Of course, I recognise both the merits and the needs of Vosper Thornycroft. But ultimately the choice of yard and the number of yards available for building warships are matters for British Shipbuilders and

    175
    not the Ministry of Defence. The MOD is the major customer, and therefore has a major interest, but it does not take decisions on such matters.

    Non-proliferation Treaty
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the nonproliferation treaty on the security of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Blaker: The non-proliferation treaty has been an effective check on the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and has contributed to the security of all countries. We welcome the fact that there are now 120 parties to the treaty and we shall continue to encourage more countries to sign.
    Mr. Luce: Since the dangers of nuclear proliferation are obvious, does my hon. Friend agree that wider adherence to the treaty can best be achieved if it is clear that every effort is being made by the nuclear powers to obtain multilateral, mutually balanced disarmament? As important talks are taking place in Geneva between the United States and the Soviet Union, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the British Government are making every effort to seek wider support for the treaty?
    Mr. Blaker: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am happy to tell him that eight further countries have adhered to the treaty since 1978. The treaty states in article 6 that the parties to it must make their best efforts to secure multilateral nuclear and other disarmament. That is why it is important to support the proposals that President Reagan has made in the INF context and the START negotiations.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: If it is so important for Britain to buy the Trident system, apparently, according to the Government, because it is good for us, why is it not good for other countries to do likewise?
    Mr. Pattie: That is not relevant to the non-proliferation treaty. [Interruption.] Opposition Members who laugh at that merely show that they have not read the treaty.
    Mr. Cryer: Does not article 6 place an obligation on the United Kingdom such as to prevent our purchasing Trident? At the 1980 review conference did not many of the non-nuclear powers become extremely critical of nuclear powers such as the United Kingdom for not reducing their dependence on nuclear weapons but rather increasing it? Would not getting rid of nuclear weapons help the non-proliferation treaty and the United Nations? Is that not the direction in which we should go?
    Mr. Pattie: Our purchase of Trident is no more a breach of the non-proliferation treaty than the modernisation by other countries, including the Soviet Union, of their existing systems. The treaty does not impose an obligation on existing nuclear states to allow their existing systems to decay.

    Cruise Missiles
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will have further discussions with Defence Ministers in other countries on the installation of United States cruise missiles on British territory.
    Mr. Heseltine: I meet my NATO ministerial colleagues periodically to discuss progress on implementing the decisions taken by the Alliance in December 1979 to modernise NATO's intermediate range nuclear forces, and to seek, by negotiation, limitations on intermediate range nuclear forces belonging both to the Soviet Union and the United States.
    Mr. Allaun: Does Mr. Reagan's new formula, which was announced this week, mean that not one single cruise missile will be deployed in Britain? If it does not mean that, is the Secretary of State aware that it is utterly unacceptable both to CND and Labour, whose manifesto this afternoon clearly states that there should be no cruise, no Trident and no nuclear bases on our territory?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the contents of the Labour party statement this afternoon, which amounts to an abandonment of all the defence policies that the Labour party believed in when it was in power. I can think of no more reckless gamble than for the Labour party to turn its back on the policies that have guaranteed the peace of the Western world for 37 years.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Government urge President Reagan to introduce into the INF negotiations the flexibility that was envisaged in 1979 at the time of the dual track decision—a linkage between intermediate missiles and strategic missiles? Without that flexibility we shall not be able to achieve satisfactory negotiations. The rigidity of trading off only SS20s against cruise and Pershing is the obstacle.
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue which is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The House will be aware that President Reagan announced last week that he would make a further statement on the issue this week. It is the subject of close consultation between the Governments.
    Mr. Allan Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the United Kingdom is an independent nuclear power makes, or should make, the conditions under which cruise missiles are deployed here quite different from those in other members of the Alliance?
    Mr. Heseltine: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety but he will be fully aware that the party of which vie are both members has long since accepted in government the joint decision arrangements with regard to existing American systems that are already deployed here. We believe that those systems and guarantees have worked and, therefore, we have accepted them with regard to cruise missiles.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Why do not the Government now recognise that the 1979 decision to locate cruise missiles was wrong, dangerous and has done more to damage the Western alliance than any other decision? In view of the deep division in the House and the country, why do the Government not now stop all work on cruise missiles until the British public have decided one way or the other in the traditional manner?
    Mr. Heseltine: For the very reasons that the Secretary of State in the Labour Government at the NATO committee meeting just before the 1979 general election said that it was necessary for NATO to have nuclear

    177
    weapons and to modernise them. All that we have done is carry the agreement that the Labour party reached in government to its logical conclusion.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Secretary of State accept, in the light of MOD support for a naval base at Stornoway in the Western Isles and the possibility of cruise missiles being stationed there, that he ought to intercede with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister because of the opposition of the majority of people there to that decision and in view of a report from a committee set up by the Secretary of State saying that the interests of the islanders ought to be paramount?
    Mr. Heseltine: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no consideration of such a proposal.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Duffy: Has the Prime Minister noticed the public advice from the new West German Chancellor, the Dutch Prime Minister, and the Italian Foreign Minister to President Reagan to break the deadlock on the Geneva talks on Euro-missiles this week? Why is she silent when even Republican senators are adding their voice to that view? Could that united effort to lift the shadow of nuclear war not have found just a small echo in her long speech on Saturday, or is she opposed to any interim proposals and any compromise on the zero option?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can have listened neither to what I have said for several weeks nor to what I have said on television. I think that I was the first to point out that the original NATO. dual-track decision said that there must be equal numbers on both sides. The zero option came later. It would be far better if the hon. Gentleman directed his attention to the Soviet Union and asked it to reduce its missiles to nil. If the zero option—which is the best optionߞcannot be reached, we must have an option that provides for equal numbers on both sides, which does not include the British and French independent nuclear deterrent, and which is verifiable. There is nothing new in that.
    Mr. David Steel: As the Prime Minister has acknowledged that people over the age of retirement have a contribution to make, in running the National Coal Board, for example, will she now honour her manifesto pledge to abolish the earnings rule and allow elderly people to take up less exalted positions?
    The Prime Minister: It is indeed our objective to abolish the earnings rule. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a time of considerable unemployment is not the best time to do that. Nor do I feel that it would be welcomed in all parts of the country if we chose to do so now.
    178
    With regard to people aged over 70 having a contribution to make, there are some 23 in this House. They make a considerable contribution.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the phenomenal success of the two Government schemes which provide microcomputers to schools on a scale that is unequalled in any other country? Has the time not now come to expand those schemes on a dramatic scale to take advantage of the enthusiasm and skills of all those young people?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. It was a great step forward to put microcomputers in every secondary school and then in every primary school so that our young people are skilled at an early age and thinking in terms of the type of jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Jobs?"]—and products that computers and computing skills can create. We have allocated some £40 million between now and 1986 for microcomputers in schools. There is also a scheme for training 11,000 teachers to be able to train pupils properly.
    Mr. Foot: In view of the great significance for everyone of President Reagan's speech a few days ago on laser beam defence in space against intercontinental ballistic missiles, can the right hon. Lady tell the House what consultations there were with the British Government before that speech and what representations she made on the subject?
    The Prime Minister: Consultations, none. We were informed that the speech would be made. I must point out that a fantastic amount of research must be done, and the President's speech was about research in this area. It is advisable to continue such research.
    Mr. Foot: Does that mean that the right hon. Lady made no representations to hold up those proposals? How much will the proposals injure existing disarmament agreements, especially that reached between President Nixon and President Brezhnev about 10 years ago? Does it not mean that that treaty will be broken? What hope does she or anyone else believe there will be for new disarmament agreements if we tear up the old ones?
    The Prime Minister: That speech, and what it proposed, has no effect at all on the anti-ballistic missile agreement. That agreement does not affect research and it does not come into operation until the development of new anti-ballistic missiles. There is a long way to go in research before we reach any development. I believe in research, but the right hon. Gentleman obviously does not.
    Mr. Foot: It is not simply a question of research. Has the right hon. Lady taken into account the statement of the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—[Interruption.] These are not laughing matters. We believe that such matters must be dealt with properly. Mr. Wiesner says that the statement
    "is really a declaration of a new cycle in the arms race." Have the Government nothing to say on the subject?
    The Prime Minister: I am not unaware of scientific matters—[Interruption.] May I express my gratitude to the House for acknowledging that that is so, or at any rate for not arguing to the contrary. I believe in going ahead with that research. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that President Reagan made it clear that his proposals were consistent with United States' obligations under the 1972

    179
    anti-ballistic missile treaty. The treaty remains in force and was reviewed by both parties last year, when there was mutual agreement that no amendment to it was necessary.
    Mr. Squireasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Squire: Has my right hon. Friend found time to read the CBI policy document issued today, which states that freedom from planning agreements and from threats of nationalisation are essential for trade and industry to grow? Will she contrast that document, from those who understand industry and trade, with the reported contents of the document issued by the Labour party, which manifestly does not understand industry and trade?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is best for those in industry to be allowed to pursue their own organisation, products, marketing and financing in their own way. When they achieve the most competitive and best-designed products we shall achieve the greatest prosperity and the creation of jobs.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Prime Minister agree that it was highly misleading to publish selective crime statistics from one part of the country only and for fewer than 3 per cent. of all crimes? Does she agree that the way in which those selected crime statistics were presented was damaging to race relations, and will she confirm that the majority of black, as well as white, people in Britain are decent and law-abiding?
    The Prime Minister: Indeed. One would not quarrel with that, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary simply answered the question that was asked.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly have had her attention drawn to the most recent annual report of Freedom House, which categorises Grenada as being within the hard core of the Communist system. Is she aware that not only Grenada but about one quarter of the member countries of the Commonwealth are now one-party states? Does she not consider this a most serious breach of the principles of the Commonwealth? As she will undoubtedly be leading the United Kingdom delegation to the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, will she ensure that these matters are discussed as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend has strong views about one-party states, as quite a number of us have. However, my hon. Friend would be the first to realise that, once countries are independent, they are free to pursue their own systems. The Commonwealth sets its own standards, and I am afraid that there is no exclusion of those who operate as one-party states.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister take time off from her engagements today to say what were the special
    180
    reasons that made her agree to the appointment of the executioner of the British steel industry, Mr. Ian MacGregor, to become the undertaker of the coal industry? Was it a fit of pique to get even with the miners? What will it cost the British taxpayer to get rid of this expensive American citizen from his position at the National Coal Board?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy dealt with this matter yesterday. Mr. MacGregor was appointed because of his excellent record, especially in coal. He took his own business into the coal industry, made it the third Largest producer in the United States, and invested heavily in coal at a time when others did not. We appointed him because we believe that he is the best person for the job.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: In greeting the second coming of the social contract, does my right hon. Friend recall that the last time we had this animal the Government gave and the trade unions received? Is it not grotesque and inherently wrong that a Government should have a contract with a privileged and protected group in society such as the trade union leaders?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. It is totally and utterly wrong that a Government should represent one section of society and not others—[HoN. MEMBERS: "That is what the Government do."] The Labour Government attempted to have a social contract with the TUC, and when people asked who was more powerful, the then Prime Minister or Mr. Jones, the answer was "Mr. Jones". That is totally wrong. People were fed up with the social contract, which took Britain to the highest rate of inflation in modern times.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Lady take time, if she has not already done so, to read the editorials of most newspapers condemning the appointment of Ian MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board, which is reputed to be entirely her appointment? Will she ensure that during his transitional period between the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board under no circumstances will he depart from the decision reached in the House in December 1982, when it was made crystal clear that the five major plants would be inviolate and that Ravenscraig would remain in exactly the same position as it is at present?
    The Prime Minister: The announcement about the five major BSC plants was that decisions would be taken by the Government. The statement also said that one can never guarantee a plant a future for all time, regardless of performance. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to that statement, he will find that that is so.
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Silvester: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the recent report of the CBI on

    181
    expectations in industry, which shows a remarkable upturn in its expectations for output? Is it not time that those who enjoyed commenting on the gloom of previous studies took pleasure in the optimism of this one?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The latest monthly report of the CBI shows that more firms expect to increase their output and that export order books have increased sharply. That is very good news. The optimism is more widespread than it was and there is a real chance that we are firmly on the road to recovery.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House which she thinks will come first—a reduction in the number of company bankruptcies or a reduction in the number of unemployed under her Government?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks back to some of the speeches made by members of the Labour
    182
    party he will find that there is always a time lag in reducing the number of unemployed. It happens that I have a quote with me. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said at a bankers' banquet in 1976.
    "There is a time lag of up to a year between the increase in output and the fall in unemployment it produces."
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to get that quotation out.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr Frank Hooley, on a point of order.
    Mr. Hooley: May I take if after the introduction of the new Member?
    Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed, I draw your attention to the fact that there is some unwanted political propaganda on the Table and obliterating the Mace—at least there was, but it has now gone.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Oswald O'Brien Esq., for Darlington.

Standing Orders (Select Committee Report)
3.22 pm
Mr. Frank Hooley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman his opportunity, as the House knows.
Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, it will be in his interest to wait a moment until hon. Members have left the Chamber.
Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise with you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, when I call him for a point of order in the ordinary process of our business, he should make his point of order then and not decide for himself that he will choose his own moment to do so. This is a point of order about which the hon. Member has given me notice, and I came prepared to answer him. That will not take two seconds. I point out to the House that hon. Members must not feel that they can choose their own moment to interrupt the business when I have called them.
Mr. Hooley: I regret if I have in any way upset the conventions of the House, Mr. Speaker. My intention was simply to show courtesy to a new colleague on his introduction to the House. I am sorry if that contravened the conventions and rules of the House, and I accept your correction if that was so, Mr. Speaker.
My point of order arises out of a motion on the Order Paper concerning the report from the Select Committee on Standing Orders (Revision). The report was published on 2 March 1983 and its terms of reference are set out on page 2 of the report. They are:
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the re-arrangement and re-drafting of the Standing Orders so as to bring them into conformity with existing practice."
I draw the attention of the House to the phrase
"bring them into conformity with existing practice."
One of the recommendations of the report, on page 56, departs substantially from the existing practice of the House. On page 56 the Committee says:
"This amendment would involve a change of practice in order to conform with the intention of the Order".
It goes on to say specifically that this would be a change in practice.
The proposition made by the Committee as set out on page 56 is that, if an hon. Member is suspended by Mr.
184
Speaker, he shall forfeit his salary during the term of his suspension. My point is that it was outwith the terms of reference of the Committee to make any such recommendation. Therefore, that recommendation does not conform to the terms of reference of the Committee as laid down by the House and should be struck out of the report and not debated. I would welcome your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether the recommendation is in order, having regard to the terms of reference laid down by the House for the Select Committee.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. However, "Erskine May" says on page 635 that the interpretation of the terms of reference for a Select Committee is a matter for the Committee. It is for the House to decide whether it likes what the Select Committee will recommend. This Select Committee dealt not only with this matter but with something else that could be interpreted as being outside the terms of its reference. The House will have a chance to decide if I select the amendment. It is not out of order, but the House will decide whether it agrees with the Select Committee.
Mr. Michael English: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you make the selection, no doubt you will wish to consider the well-known rule of law that, although the House of Commons has power to imprison, it has no power to fine.
Mr. Speaker: In the words of a former Prime Minister, we shall wait and see.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify a point of some significance with regard to the ruling that you gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)? When a Select Committee takes heed of the terms of reference in the way that you have described, is the "Erskine May" definition in relation to a grey area or one on which there is some ambiguity in the terms of reference, or is it related to the Select Committee doing anything that it wishes, even if it is outside the terms of reference as generally understood?
Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of common sense, and a Committee will interpret its terms of reference. Sometimes others may disagree with the interpretation of the Committee, but it is up to the House to decide whether it wants to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee.

Marital Rape
3.39 pm
Mr. John Tilley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to make rape within marriage a criminal offence.
I seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill so as to draw the attention of hon. Members and the public to the fact that there are circumstances in our law where the act of rape is perfectly legal. I hope that realisation of that fact will create such a storm of protest both in the House and in the country that there will be an early change in the law. The circumstances in which rape is legal occur when the victim is the wife of her assailant. However unwilling the woman is, however fierce her resistance, her assailant has only to produce a marriage certificate to escape all legal blame or punishment.
The House last considered this issue in 1976, when an amendment making marital rape a criminal offence, just like all other forms of rape, was carried during the Committee stage of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act. The amendment was withdrawn on Report, when the then Minister assured the House that the Criminal Law Revision Committee would consider the matter very carefully. It did consider the matter, and in 1980 it reported its conclusion that a majority of its members favoured an amendment in the law along the lines of the Bill that I seek to introduce today. I shall quote a small part of its report. It said:
"The present law, which is part of the common law, has an archaic flavour to it. It is generally taken to be as stated by Hale in his Pleas of the Crown, which he wrote in the 1650s.
`The husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.'
The critics of this law point out that since Hale's time wives can retract this consent. They can get divorces and separation orders. The courts have had to recognise in relation to rape modern changes in attitude towards marriage."
It goes on:
"The most glaring anomaly of all … is that a woman who is cohabiting with a man—and maybe she has done so for very many years—can refuse him sexual intercourse and her refusal, if it can be proved, will come within the law of rape, whereas a wife's will not. Cohabitation outside marriage is becoming increasingly common and this adds to the anomaly of drawing the distinction as it is now drawn. Stated at its simplest, the criticism is that the present rule denies married women something to which all other women are entitled."
It is quite clear from that quotation that the Criminal Law Revision Committee came down on the side of changing the law. That report was published three years ago, and since then the Government have not taken any action to implement it, and by supporting the Bill today the House can act where the Government have so far failed to act.
There are two major objections to a change in the law of this kind. I shall deal with them briefly but separately. The first is that a contested charge of marital rape would be very difficult to prove in court, because it would simply be the word of one person against that of another, with no corroborative evidence. That is quite true, but it is just as true of many allegations of rape, as the law now stands. The fact that a crime is difficult to prove is not a reason for saying that it is not a crime at all. The criminal law is not simply a mechanism for securing convictions. I believe
186
that its more fundamental purpose is to list the actions and activities that society finds so abhorrent that the perpetrators deserve punishment. Surely the act of rape is such a terrible act that every form of rape should be on the list of crimes which British society does not want to go unpunished.
The second objection is that the law must be very chary of entering the complex and intimate relationship between man and wife, and that problems within a marriage may be exacerbated rather than solved if they are dragged through a court of law. There is a great deal of sense in that view, but I put it to the House that the law as it stands, and as it has stood since at least 1650, has interfered in a most unfair and biased way in marriage by legalising marital rape. I suggest that those who believe that the law should put marriage partners on an equal footing should support this Bill, because it removes a massive bias against the woman in a marriage. Why, in 1983, should a man have a legal right to rape his wife?
By explicitly condoning rape within marriage, the law implicitly condones other forms of violence and assault within marriage. Is it not ironic that 100 years after this House passed the Married Women's Property Act, which gave a married woman control over her material possessions, the law still does not give a married woman the same control over her own body and her own fertility?
I do not say that the law as it stands is being preserved expressly to oppress married women. However, I suggest that a law that is based on the power relationship that existed between a husband and wife in the 1650s is grossly outdated, and reflects neither present-day reality nor the way in which society is developing its views on marriage. Society's views on rape itself are also changing. In the seven years since the issue was last considered in this House, public attitudes to rape have changed, and changed for the better. It is no longer just a subject for embarrassed silence or sniggers.
The press, in particular, has given the issue more thoughtful coverage and has expressed concern when judges do not take a serious enough view of the offence. The Prime Minister herself, from the Dispatch Box, was swift to condemn the trifling sentence imposed recently on a double rapist. In Scotland, Lord Robertson gave an important judgment just a year ago, declaring that marital rape could be an offence under Scots law. I suggest, therefore, that it is now time for this House, as a lawmaking body, to bring the law in England and Wales into line with the new and better attitudes that are emerging.
The Bill would not lead to many prosecutions. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to demonstrate that this House believes that the act of rape—enforced sexual intercourse—is so abhorrent and so harmful to its victim that every woman in Britain should have the protection of the law against such violation. The only way to achieve that is to outlaw the act of rape, wherever and whenever it occurs.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Tilley, Miss Jo Richardson, Miss Joan Maynard, Mr. Reg Race, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Frank Dobson and Mr. Jack Ashley.

Marital Rape
  MARITAL RAPE
  Mr. John Tilley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to make rape within marriage a criminal offence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
Orders of the Day
  Telecommunications Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
      Clause 2

        ABOLITION OF BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE ETC.
        3.48 pm
        Mr. John Golding: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 2, line 39, at end insert `, except in relation to running cable systems'.
        It was difficult for Opposition Members to speak in our debate yesterday because of the length of the speech that was made by the Minister of State, and because of the internal Conservative party battle that took place between 10 o'clock last evening and almost midnight, when the guillotine came down. Today I hope that Conservative Members will give the Opposition time in which to put their point of view.
        In my opinion, it is sharp practice for a Government to introduce a guillotine to curtail discussion of a Bill which is of great importance not only to subscribers and the manufacturing industry but to the staff. The Government curtailed discussion, and then took the time of the House to conduct internal party battles.
        People outside will note how the Government: have behaved over the Bill. In order to hand over telecommunications to their friends in private industry, so that private industry can make, in the words of Lord Weinstock, a quick buck, they have set out on the road of liberalisation and privatisation—not because that is in the interests of Britain or of tile telecommunications industry, but because even the oil revenues are inadequate to fund the unemployment that the Government have created. They need to sell off—often at cut prices—industries that have been created from public investment to obtain additional revenue with which to fund unemployment. That is the damnable situation that we face today.
        The amendment is designed to ensure that responsibility for installing and developing the future cable system will rest with the publicly controlled British Telecom.
        The Government's position on cabling is not clear. We were promised that before, Easter there would be a White Paper on the development of cable in Britain. Perhaps the Government do not use the same timetables, the same calendar or the same diaries as the Opposition use. I had thought that Good Friday was next Friday and that Easter Monday was next Monday, but there is still no sign of the White Paper dealing with the cabling of Britain.
        All too often Ministers have promised us documents that are essential for the sensible discussion of telecommunications policy but have failed to keep their promises. I mentioned yesterday the promise of information on access fees, on the licence for British Telecom and on the memorandum about British Telecom, including specific statements about the role of British

        189
        Telecom in the cabling of Britain. The Minister of State promised all that information, but we have not yet received it.
        Despite the ill-fated report of the Information Technology Advisory Panel which was commissioned by the Department of Industry, and despite the timidity of the unsatisfactory Hunt report, we learnt in Committee that the Minister of State was moving towards the proposition that, in the long term, cable should be national, switched and broad band, and must integrate telecommunications, broadcasting and data transmission.
        I think that even the Government now recognise that the development of cable must be under public control. That has led them to reject the shallowness of the ITAP report and to acknowledge that fibre optics must have a dominant role. I do not know whether the Minister is reading his holiday brochure, but it would be better if the doyen of information technology would take some interest in the debate on cable.
        The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): It is not a holiday brochure. It is a brochure published today by my Department on the small engineering firms investment scheme which will provide £100 million in funding for British companies to buy the latest electronically controlled machine tools. Many of the companies that will benefit from the scheme—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the Minister is about to use the magic word "cable".
        Mr. Baker: You anticipated my very words, Mr. Speaker. Under the scheme, many British companies will be able to buy machine tools to help to develop the technology for the cable revolution in Britain. That is why I recommend the brochure to all Members of the House.
        Mr. Golding: The Minister makes my point for me. The doyen of information technology is more interested in reading about a bogus scheme that has entirely failed to impress the country, especially the west midlands, than in the legitimate argument about cable technology. I should have been more impressed if he had been reading the promised White Paper on cable, which has so far not appeared, rather than a glossy pamphlet on an entirely different subject. I suspect that the Minister is not listening to the argument, because whenever he has listened to us he has been persuaded and has had to try to knock some sense into the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and in this context I think that that is beyond even the Minister's capacity.
        The Government have had to reject the shallowness of the ITAP report and to acknowledge that fibre optics must play a dominant role. That report was an attempt to rescue just a couple of private cable relay firms. The Government have had to reject the ITAP view that there was no role for new technology in the development of cable and to acknowledge that fibre optics must be dominant and that the switched star system should be developed in this country. They have accepted the logic of that, but they are not taking sufficient action on it. Having rejected the ITAP report, they are inhibited by their own Hunt report which is dominated by the free market philosophy.
        It is regrettable for broadcasting that the Government have failed to accept that there should be a separation
        190
        between those who install and maintain the physical cable systems and those who use the systems for broadcasting and data trasmission. It would have been far better if the Government had created a common carrier system and separated the physical network from broadcasting and other uses of the system. It is regrettable from Britain's point of view that the Government accepted the Hunt recommendations.
        4 pm
        In Committee the Minister confessed that logic was on the side of the Opposition, and that the weight of argument was with the Post Office Engineering Union, the TUC and British private manufacturing industry. The Minister is faced not only by the POEU, which says that it wants a national system based on fibre optics, but by our major employers and manufacturers in the cable industry who say that the POEU is right and that the Government are wrong. Some of the Government's major supporters and closest advisers in manufacturing industry have been telling them that the future lies in the development of fibre optics.
        The Minister knows that the Opposition are right. Reading between the lines of his speeches, the utterances that are delivered with confidence are those in support of fibre optics, but those that are delivered with hesitation tend to support copper coaxial cable. I think that the Minister has been persuaded, and that if he had total freedom, he would agree with the Opposition. However, he is not a free agent. His policy is determined by the Secretary of State, who is more concerned to keep happy those individuals who wish to provide cable and, in the words of Lord Weinstock, make a quick buck than to provide the best system for Britain.
        The Government, the Minister and the Department of Industry are failing to support adequately the development of fibre optics. There is some force in their argument that in a cable system it is impossible to go over wholly to fibre optics at present. The logical conclusion of that argument is that more effort must be put into the development of fibre optics. After all, the Minister has acknowledged—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) will raise this matter later—that Britain is a world leader in this business. If the Japanese and the Americans were world leaders in a technology which would have important consequences for telecommunications, they would be giving more support to the development of that technology,
        The Government are investing only £40 million in fibre optics, with a further £15 million for joint industry and university development. It ought to be much more. The Minister of State has been persuaded of the long-term validity of the argument that Britain should have a star system of cable rather than a tree-and-branch system. Instead of ensuring the maximum development from the start of the star configuration, the Minister has decided to ensure that new systems can be adapted to the star configuaration in the future. He recognises that the star configuration will hold the ring for the future. However, he has decided not to proceed immediately to that system but to ensure that the present systems are compatible in future.
        That would be all right if there was an almighty rush to develop the cable system, but that is not the position. What the Minister of State is doing is harmful not only to the telecommunications system and to the development of

        191
        the cable system in Britain but to British industry. If many tree-and-branch networks are installed in the United Kingdom, albeit with evolutionary potential, based heavily on coaxial cable, the economic dangers would be that the chance of boosting the United Kingdom's expertise and capacity in both switched systems and optical fibres would be diminished.
        These are home-grown technologies in which the United Kingdom is among the leaders and where there is export potential. In addition, coaxial cable is obsolescent. When the time comes for replacing it, the United Kingdom's capacity in optic fibre cable will be correspondingly weaker and more vulnerable to imports. Because coaxial cable is an old technology and widely available, the United Kingdom will be manufacturing it for home demand and there will be no export spin-off.
        I do not know whether there is another rebellion brewing on the Government Benches, but whenever I see the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) being listened to by the Minister I know that trouble is brewing. I know that the Minister is wondering whether he will have to summon the Leader of the House, as he did last night, the Government Chief Whip or even an ordinary Government Whip to deal with the hon. Gentleman. Opposition Members would appreciate it if these disputes in the Conservative party could, as is traditional, be conducted in private. It is disturbing, surrounded as I am by my colleagues in a party that is totally unified—
        Dr. John Cunningham: As in Darlington.
        Mr. Golding: As in the campaign document of which I have a rare copy. I find it distinctly off-putting to be faced with the continued controversy on the Government Benches, even though I understand it.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: What about Bermondsey?
        Mr. Golding: When you were in charge, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Government Whips' Office, if a sedentary Government Whip had dared to utter an abusive comment from the Front Bench—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I should be left out of this.
        Mr. Golding: It is a rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we cannot speak directly to Government Whips, so I must address the Whip through you. However, I think that you are better off, Mr. Deputy Speaker, out of the Government Whips' Office. You are better off not having to control the hon. Member for Grantham.
        American cable television is based on tree-and-branch systems. The United States of America therefore specialises in all the related hardware, which its manufacturers are keen to export. British cable consortia that lay tree-and-branch systems are likely to import much of that hardware. Given those three factors, is it surprising that British manufacturers should tell the Conservative Government that their proposals for cable will be disastrous for British jobs in the cable manufacturing industry? Is it surprising that those who run STC and that those in charge of GEC should indict this Government on the charge that they will destroy jobs and profits in British
        192
        industry? The Government are willing for those jobs and that profit to given to Japan, the far east, the United States of America or to anywhere but Britain.
        One of the Opposition's constant themes is that Conservative Members do not seem to care a hoot about jobs being lost in Britain. It is on record that when the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills spoke about industry in his constituency he suddenly queried, as an afterthought, whether there was any left. The hon. Gentleman has been as concerned as any Opposition Member about the destruction of jobs. If there were a cable manufacturer in Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Gentleman would be conducting a rebellion—albeit unsuccessfully—on this issue, just as he tried to conduct a rebellion between 10 pm and midnight last night. The hon. Gentleman knew that these proposals would mean the loss of jobs in Britain.
        Britain is in the lead and a British technical development will transform telecommunications. However, instead of making every effort to exploit that invention and to develop the work, the Government are creating an environment in which that development will not take place in Britain. Indeed, the Government are creating an environment in which the Americans will flourish in Britain. During the past two years, have become used to seeing the Government's telecommunications policy being conducted in the interests of the American firm IBM. It is apparent that IBM does more successful political lobbying in this country than any other company. I do not see why we should stand aside and let the Government export jobs and profitability overseas.
        The Government's attitude to BT is also of concern. The Rediffusions of this world wanted BT to be kept out altogether. The Minister could not agree with that propositon and he said that it would be wrong to exclude BT altogether. However, BT can make an overwhelming case to be given the major role in cable installation and maintenance because of its resources, its present public accountability, its trained work force and its expertise in cable television, fibre optics, two-way services in communications and information technology gradually. According to the Minister, BT will compete freely for the provision of cable networks. Other things being equal, that would put BT in a very favourable position, because it has the men, the skills, the facilities and the expertise. However, I understand that the Government plan to cut BT's borrowing limit in the next financial year in addition to the constraints that have already been imposed. No such constraints will be imposed on BT's competitors.
        The Government's announcement has increased the likelihood of undermining the publicly owned and integrated telecommunications network. It has opened the door to private cable consortia carrying non-voice telecommunications traffic. We must oppose that strongly. [Interuption.] Like my hon. Friends, I am often in difficulty because I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) wants us to be brief or to speak for a long time. If my right hon. Friend wants me to speak at length, perhaps he will leave the Chamber now. If he wants me to be brief, perhaps he will stay.
        Mr. Stanley Orme: I will stay.
        4.15 pm
        Mr. Golding: That means that my right hon. Friend wants me to conclude fairly quickly. During the course of

        193
        our proceedings, I have worried about the relationship that has developed between the Government Whips and my right hon. Friend.
        However, it is important to the POEU that there should be no development that allows cable operators to carry telecommunications traffic. That is vital. If further traffic is taken away from BT, BT's financing would become more and more complex. If we lived in a world of perfect competition, my argument would be different, but does it make sense for the Government to say that further revenues can be taken from BT when it means that access fees elsewhere will have to be increased to fund the uneconomic services? The Government are getting into a tangle. It would be far better if they said that they would not allow private cable operators to carry telephone traffic, regardless of whether Mercury and BT are involved.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: By "telephone traffic", does the hon. Gentleman mean voice telephony or data transmission as well?
        Mr. Golding: I was speaking specifically of voice traffic. I should like to reserve my position on data traffic because we would need to think that out, but certainly in terms of voice traffic it does not make sense further to deplete the revenues of BT, which then have to be replenished by access fees.
        The Government are in great danger of creating such a complicated system of cross-subsidisation that it will be very difficult indeed to manage the entire system.
        I end on this note, and I end only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West has decided to stay in the Chamber and wants me to end my contribution.
        Mr. John Grant: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I agree with a great deal of it—not least what he said about jobs, because I think that the Government are trying to create the impression that there are many jobs in cable when in fact the reverse is probably the case.
        The hon. Gentleman's amendment, on the face of it, is very sweeping. It talks about "running cable systems". What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that? Does he include a cable station? That is the way it reads to me.
        Mr. Golding: It does not mean running the cable system. I have said—but I was speaking in shorthand at that point—that as a union we believe very strongly in the separation of the physical system and the use of that system. To us that is absolutely imperative. It would be disastrous if BT, Mercury or any other operator of a telecommunications system that started broadcasting became responsible for programmes.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: That is not what the amendment says.
        Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not what it says, but it is a peg. It is not possible, given our medieval system of parliamentary democracy—which I support—to discuss complicated technological matters with the rationality that we would wish. The amendment is a peg on which to take a vote in principle. It is essential that we in this country do not go along the path of the Government breaking up telecommunications, smashing
        194
        telecommunications into little bits. We must develop an integrated national system of telecommunications which can carry not only telephony but broadcasting and data.
        Mr. John Browne: The aim of this amendment is to retain a monopoly for British Telecom and its exclusive privileges in relation to the running of cable systems. What the word "running" means, both legally and in commercial practice, I do not really know; it is such a very vague word that I think on those grounds alone this amendment should be voted down by the House. It is far too vague, far too generalised, an amendment to make a serious contribution to the law regarding the future of British Telecom in a most serious and critical clause.
        Let us not dwell on just the meaning of that one word when it is perfectly clear that the basic meaning and aim of this clause is to retain the monopoly of British Telecom at least for the cable industry—or we should probably call it more correctly the videotext industry.
        I believe that monopoly is an abuse of Government power. It is part of the ethos, or the arrogance, of Socialism—the arrogance that says that the State knows better than the individual. I believe that it is very damaging because I see before our country the first and most essential challenge facing all of us. What we do in this House at all times basically comes down to the question, will we as a country retain our standard of living and our standard as a developed country by making it to the technological revolution? That is what this Bill is all about. It is one of the most important aspects of trying to achieve the technological revolution, which is absolutely fundamental to our standard of living and to our future.
        I see Opposition Members shaking their heads, but if we look at the historical evolution of developed societies we must surely see that it is so. In the old days, if we were lucky and had a prince or a general who managed to beat neighbouring countries at war or in the sophisticated trickery of diplomacy, we gained. We were able to use their goods and services to build up our own wealth and therefore be able to afford a higher standard of living than other countries. That was very much a case-by-case difference between developed countries and underdeveloped countries in those days. What really started the major, almost irreversible trend of difference between the developed and the underdeveloped countries was the revolutionary process. First there were the agriculture revolutions, the first being the use of the enclosure system and the second the use of machines on the land. Then we had the industrial revolutions—first the heavy industry revolution and then the light industry revolution. Now we have the technological revolution. As each of these revolutions has taken place the difference between the developed and the underdeveloped countries has become wider.
        I can think of only one country in history that has managed to move from being an underdeveloped nation to being a developed nation without following the normal trend, and that is Japan, but that was for very special reasons.
        Mr. Stan Thorne: I am interested in that line of argument, particularly from the hon. Gentleman, and I am wondering how, as a Christian, he squares the argument that he is developing about the differences between high technology countries and

        195
        underdeveloped countries and how he will overcome the problem. Does he think that the Bill will help in any way the poor people of Ethiopia?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That might be a matter for another debate. Perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to the amendment.
        Mr. Browne: May I just answer that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in one sentence, or would that be out of order?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be out of order.
        Mr. Browne: Then I must take the matter up outside the Chamber with the hon. Member, but I have ideas on that question as well.
        The big thing is that we must remain a developed society and to do that we must embrace the technological revolution. If we do not we shall become an underdeveloped industrial country. Living in our climate, with upwards of 55 million people in a series of overcrowded islands, if we slip to becoming an underdeveloped society we shall find life extremely uncomfortable. Some of the advantages of our developed society are tap water that we can drink, a system of law and order, although under strain, a system of justice, organisation within our cities, food distribution and so on. All those facilities are at stake.
        4.30 pm
        As I have said, the arrogance of Socialism is typified in the attitude or apparent attitude of Socialists. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will correct me, but it appears to those outside the Labour party that its attitude to the technological revolution is to say—"We cannot make it and we do not want a technological revolution in Britain, therefore we shall resist it." Labour Governments believe that they can isolate Great Britain from the rest of the world.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will he relate his remarks to the running of cable systems, which is what the amendment is about?
        Mr. Browne: I was trying to paint a picture to show how important it is that this monopoly is not retained. I am coming to cable, but if the monopoly is retained cable systems will be stultified and they are a major force in our achieving a technological revolution. I am trying to make the case as to why we should not allow that monopoly to be retained. Surely I should be allowed to paint the background to my case because this is an important issue.
        I want to illustrate the way in which Socialists have tried to isolate us from the technological revolution, which has led to the monopolies that we are talking about now. I tried to trace the origin of those monopolies because they are so harmful, and to try to explain to the House why we must not allow this monopoly to continue, particularly in an area where we expect enterprise rather than stagnation.
        Let me allude to what many would consider to be an abuse of trade union power in the past 50 years to see where trade unionists have used their power to pressure weak Governments and weak management to make wage awards that are out of proportion to the successful sales of companies. Those wage awards have resulted in investment in wages which should have gone on product design.
        Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with a specific amendment relating to cable
        196
        systems. The hon. Gentleman has not been present in any of the debates. I do not know whether he is making a speech for his local paper, but it is certainly not directed to the Bill and I ask for the protection of the Chair.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already interrupted the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on two occasions. Interesting though his speech is, it is probably more relevant to the Third Reading debate than to this amendment. I ask him again if he will please relate his speech to amendment No. 120.
        Mr. Browne: With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says that I have not attended the debates but I did attend the Second Reading debate although I was not on the Committee that has sat for some 160 hours and which included one of the longest speeches, if not the longest speech, ever made in the House. I attended and spoke in the debates on cable systems and that is what this amendment is about. It is a critical element.
        If this monopoly is allowed to exist in the cable industry it will have a devastating effect on the future potential of the cable or videotext industry. We are talking not merely about the cable industry but about the application of a monopoly to it. In building my case to persuade the House to do away with this amendment, surely I should be allowed a reference to the word "monopoly" in addition to the words "cable industry".
        I want to trace the evolution of monopolies because then one realises how harmful they are to Britain and what enormous damage they have done to our industries. A monopoly will do enormous damage to the potential of the cable or videotext industry if it is allowed to continue. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded in quietening hiss hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), but why should he be allowed to quieten me? Monopolies are a critical element in this argument. Clause 2 is about monopolies and the cable industry.
        As funds were taken from product design, the building of proper quality products, prompt delivery and competitive after-sales service, our sales dropped away. British industry failed to sell its goods in the international markets so it dropped its prices and Governments assisted them by dropping the price of sterling. We ended up producing out-of-date goods that not only would not sell in the international market but would not sell at home either. One has only to look at the computer industry and our car parks to see how many foreign goods are selling in Britain compared to British goods.
        The Socialist response to that fall in sales was first to help boost sales by giving Government orders. Thai was the first step on the slippery slope to monopoly and decay. The second step was to offer massive loans on uncommercial terms to those big industries and companies that were beginning to fail because they had paid too much in wages and were not designing good quality products, delivering on time or producing after-sales services.
        Nationalisation was the next big con trick. All those industries were grouped together and were not lent, but were given, money in grants. The Government's legacy is to have to pump between £6,000 million and £8,000 million a year into those industries. That is the position that we have reached. Those industries are still failing. A Socialist Government created a monopoly to stop any form

        197
        of competition in Britain. The result of such monopolies is, first, a complete absence of choice for the consumer. If one wants to buy gas in Britain—
        Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your guidance again. We are dealing with amendment No. 120, which says:
        "at end insert `, except in relation to running cable systems'."
        I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with some patience and I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to point out that he is not speaking to the amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was also listening carefully. I have allowed the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) considerable latitude in giving the background to his speech on the amendment. However, I say to him again that his speech must be directed to clause 2 and to the words on the Amendment Paper. His speech is far more appropriate to a debate on Third Reading and, if I may advise the hon. Gentleman, that is when it should be made.
        Mr. Browne: I accept that criticism. I shall content myself, therefore, with a brief paragraph on the evils of monopoly and then I shall come to the second part of my speech on cable. The absence of choice means that prices of the monopolies can rise and we can do nothing about it. People have to buy gas from somewhere.
        Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what you said and intends to persist in delaying a real discussion of the amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought I heard the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) mention the word "gas". I do not think that the Bill has anything to do with gas. I should like him now to confine himself wholly and exclusively to telecommunications.
        Mr. Browne: Under duress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a question of being under duress. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that when we have these debates we must stick to the amendment that is on the Amendment Paper, otherwise the debate will become chaotic.
        Mr. Browne: With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this not a clause that involves monopolies? It deals with cable but it is the monopoly in the cable business that I am speaking about. Anyway, I shall not dwell on that. I take your point that you do not wish me to discuss monopolies.
        The Government are seeking to abolish the British Telecom monopoly in most areas of its operations but are making one exception, the cable business. Why should the cable industry be singled out from all the other activities of British Telecom to be left with this legacy around its neck? The cable or the videotext business is a new industry offering an avenue of advance for our country in the technological revolution. The success of the industry will depend on two vital facts. The first is risk-taking; huge amounts of capital must be invested. The second is innovation; if any industry is changing fast, it is the cable industry, with enormous technological changes and advances being made almost every day.
        Will a monopoly, which I tried to describe, be the type of organisation that will take risks? It will have its prices
        198
        already so there will be no incentive for it to take risks to make any more money. Will a monopoly innovate? The history of British Telecommunications shows a lack of innovation in comparison with its international competitors.
        The main problem facing the fledgling cable industry is financial viability. The videotext business, by its very nature, is highly capital intensive. It is new and therefore high risk. The Government intend to use internal sources of finance and not Government sources to finance the industry. Therefore they must act with great sensitivity. They must ensure that for the success of the industry as few fetters as possible are put on it from the beginning. Therefore, there are no grounds whatsoever to allow a monopoly to exist, let alone to isolate just the cable industry out of all the activities of British Telecommunications and leave that alone to carry the burden of a monopoly.
        May I list some important areas where I should like my hon. Friend to give clearer definitions? On the cable system, could he define more clearly what he means by a franchise? This will have a great bearing on whether or not a monopoly should exist. For how long will the franchises last? Will the present cable operators be given the special privileges they sought in the Hunt report? Can he also say precisely what he means by "interactive" when there is an obligation to provide interactive services? What band widths have the Government in mind that cable operators should budget for in laying the cables?
        4.45 pm
        I agree with the thrust of the Government's policy on things like the "must carry" services and non-exclusive events. The Government should reconsider their views on pay-per-view, on quotas, and on the system of hardware and software for British industry, which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned in his eloquent speech. There is an important issue here, especially when we are talking about British Telecom, the hardware that is in the ground and what has to be laid. We have to strike a balance between past monopolies, which tended to go into the future and stultify innovation, and competition that encourages innovation. We must protect British industry to encourage it to compete in the new industry.
        On British Telecom itself, I approve very much of the privatisation provision in the clause. I should like to place it on record that although I support privatisation we should not knock British Telecom or exclude it from the cable business. My only argument is that we should not grant British Telecom a monopoly. In the opinion of many of those who are interested in the telecommunication and videotext business, British Telecom is amongst the foremost in high technology in communications and particularly in fibre optics, which will play a critical role in the videotext business if my hon. Friend insists on an interactive system with a wide band width.
        British Telecom is also environmentally acceptable. That is a great selling point. I agree with many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that we are all used to seeing British Telecom digging up the streets; we are accustomed to those yellow vans.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be under a mistaken belief that we are discussing the motion that the clause stand part. We are on a very

        199
        narrow amendment concerned with the running of cable systems. The hon. Gentleman must now concentrate on that or bring his remarks to a conclusion.
        Mr. Browne: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall do that. I get the point of your remarks.
        I am trying to say that British Telecom is acceptable and has a significant role to play in the cable industry, but not as a monopoly. I am trying to show that it can play a constructive role. I question why it should have monopoly privileges. British Telecom should be allowed to participate in the growth of the video text business, but as a partner and not as a monopoly owner. That would ensure that innovation and risk-taking were key factors and that there was co-operation within the industry by cable operators, cable producers and cable layers.
        British Telecom has a valuable role to play as a partner. In the initial stages of the take-off of the industry there might be a single organisation in which British Telecom was a partner but which would include the big cable layers and operators and the public as individual shareholders. Such a single organisation would ensure what Opposition Members want—a standardisation of technology within the different sections of the cable business.
        I can understand hon. Gentlemen wanting a monopoly to ensure technological standards throughout the country, but why must it be done through one company? Why cannot we have a single organisation such as the Hudson Bay Company in the cable business? It would ensure that standards of technology were maintained.
        I should like to hear the Minister's comments about the public owning some of the shares in a modern Hudson Bay type of company, which would ensure standards but at the same time introduce innovation and risk-taking. There never was and never will be successful and sustained risk-taking and innovation with a monopoly.
        I believe that it would be wrong and discriminatory for British Telecom to retain a monopoly in the cable business. I believe that it would be against the national interest when competing in the technological revolution, and that there would be no likelihood of success in the cable business because there would be the minimum of risk-taking and innovation and the maximum amount of bureaucracy.
        I urge the Minister to consider establishing a consortium including major and minor interests within the prospective industry and ordinary people in the street and in the corner shop who could invest in a consortium. I believe that would resolve many of the anxieties of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen about standardisation and so forth and also many of my right hon. and hon. Friends' worries about ensuring that the video text and cable business succeeds and contributes to our remaining a developed and high technology society.
        Mr. John McWilliam: I shall be brief, unfortunately, although I have a great deal to say about cable. I must declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Post Office Engineering Union and also as a telephone engineer with some 20 years' experience. Cable is not an alien world to me. I have worked and dealt with it, and I am fairly familar with the economics of its provision and other aspects with which we should deal but are prevented from dealing with.
        I am pleased to speak after the distinguished speech of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). It was
        200
        distinguished by its irrelevance and lack of knowledge of what the Bill contains. He talked about a Hudson Bay type of company. The Bill creates a private company and the amendment does not affect that. The speech was based on a lack of knowledge not just of the computer and information technology industry in Great Britain but of the way in which the American Government pour billions and billions of dollars into their industry, which is what we must compete with.
        Mr. Stan Thorne: When the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was speaking, his speech sounded like a brief from IBM. Has IBM an interest in this?
        Mr. McWilliam: My hon. Friend has probably hit the nail on the head, because the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Winchester are the same as those adduced to me, and I believe other right hon. and hon. Members, by IBM.
        Mr. Charles R. Morris: Can my hon. Friend confirm chat even IBM would not take responsibility for the hon. Gentleman's speech?
        Mr. John Browne rose—
        Mr. McWilliam: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman took far too long.
        Mr. Browne rose—
        Mr. McWilliam: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is not giving way.
        Mr. McWilliam: It would be useful if we could return to the subject of cable. I do not wish to be irrelevant—
        Mr. Browne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it a point of order?
        Mr. Browne: I believe that it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) suggested that my speech had something to do with IBM, and that I had some connection with IBM when writing the speech.
        Mr. Stan Thorne: My hon. friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) did not say that; I did.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of argument.
        Mr. McWilliam: I refused to give way not because I did not wish the hon. Member for Winchester to have the right of reply—plainly he has just replied—but because of the lack of time. I want to make a couple of brief but I believe important points.
        The reason for the amendment is simple. It is to achieve what the Minister is trying to achieve with the licensing policy that he has announced for all cable systems, which is a star-switched method of distribution as the ultimate aim and a star configuration of tree and branch as the intermediate aim for cable systems. The Minister has already provided an incentive for that by the licences that he is granting.
        The Opposition argue a contrary point to that argued by the hon. Member for Winchester. Our argument is that any

        201
        cable system is a monopoly for the people that it serves. I am talking about the physical system, which is what cable systems mean. The system is independent of the information that it carries, and the information it carries should be provided separately and not by British Telecom. Any individual cable system is a monopoly in the area it covers. The Opposition say that it is wasteful, uneconomic and silly to have the hardware of the cable system provided solely on the basis of pay-TV because the broad band aspects will give us the opportunity to develop the whole range of information technology services that we should like, not just pornographic movies which seem to be the basis of funding in the United States.
        The only way in which the economics of the system will make sense is if it carries not just pay-television but also data transmission systems, information technology, telephone systems and other services such as fire and burglar alarms. We should like to see cable developed on that basis. The Opposition believe that that can be achieved only by British Telecom providing the cables. It will then be able to provide a network of a broad enough band width to meet all the demands. What is more—and the hon. Member for Winchester missed this—the basis of the system is fibre optics, in which there has been British innovation.
        I reject the criticism of British Telecom by the hon. Member for Winchester because British Telecom developed the modern fibre optic cable systems. We should like to see that developed, and we believe that it is possible only if British Telecom retains the monopoly of providing the systems. However, we do not believe that British Telecom should provide any programmes on those systems. For that reason, I commend the amendment to the House.
        Dr. John Cunningham: I believe that everyone has agreed on Second Reading, in Committee and until this afternoon that the prospects of developing cable systems in Great Britain and the opportunities and avenues that will be open for the development of optic fibre cable systems, in particular, present Great Britain with a major industrial opportunity in terms of communications and new services, and prospects for entertainment, leisure activities and the like.
        We agree that those opportunities should be grasped by Britain as a nation, particularly in the industrial sense. We should press ahead to maximise the advantage of our world lead, at least in some aspects of optic fibre technology and the other equipment that goes with it.
        5 pm
        However, there, I regret, the agreement about the clause and the amendment that we are discussing ends. While we in the Opposition believe that a national strategy is required to maximise those potential benefits and the opportunities, the Government have been more concerned hitherto with a market force, private enterprise approach. That neatly fits in with their philosophy, as our view fits in with our philosophy. We believe not only that a framework to guide industrial policy is required but that proper controls over cable systems are needed for a variety of reasons.
        Therefore, there are fundamental issues that divide us. Those differences in philosophy delineate the dispute between the Tories and the Labour party. That is why the
        202
        Opposition support amendment No. 120, moved so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).
        This is not a new issue, contrary to what has been asserted by Conservative Members. Debate about cable systems, particularly about cable television and its future, has been going on for some time. We welcome the proposals to expand cable television, provided that they are carried out in a manner that preserves the existing high standards of public service broadcasting and facilitates the creation of one integrated communications system carrying both broadcasting and telecommunication services. That is our aim. The overriding priority is a national network and a national cable system from which private sector operators can benefit. Therefore, contrary to what the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) said, we are talking not about an all-pervading monopoly but about one national public network. That is where the hon. Gentleman was fundamentally in error in his argument. We believe that not only—
        Mr. John Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman made a long speech. I shall be much briefer than him. I know that the Minister wishes to reply at some length, so I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
        We believe that public service broadcasting can be protected only if cable television is subject to an effective system of regulation that limits, for example, advertising and foreign programming. The technical integration of such a broadcasting and telecommunications system is most likely to come about by the deployment of the latest technologies, involving the provision of switched optical fibre systems.
        There is a great deal of public concern, as I believe hon. Members throughout the House realise, about what many people see as a free-for-all in the development of cable television systems. Both the need for regulation and the arguments about technology would best be served by there being a strict separation between the trunk network provider—the operator of the system—and the operators of the networks that would feed from it—the cable television companies themselves. We want British Telecom to have the major role in the former aspect—the provision of cable systems. British Telecom would then lease most, if not all, the channel capacity on those systems to cable operators that were awarded franchises. It could use the remaining cable channels for its own broad band telecommunications needs.
        We think that that is not only the neatest, simplest and most elegant way to provide the network that the country needs, but the best way to proceed in terms of cost benefit for the nation as a whole and the use of the nation's resources. An industrialist of impeccable market credentials, Lord Weinstock, criticised the Government's approach and said that they should avoid the temptation to go for the quick buck option, which was recommended to the Government in the Information Technology Advisory Panel report. We want that report to be rejected by the Government.
        Unfortunately, so far the Government's response to the ITAP report has involved the setting up of the Hunt committee, which was simply an inquiry into the broadcasting implications of cable television. It failed to

        203
        grasp the real scope of the opportunities that we have. It failed to address itself to the broad spectrum of the industrial and entertainment prospects that we should grasp. The committee was disappointing in its guidelines. We have missed the boat before it has even got going.
        The best way to sum up both the ITAP and the Hunt reports is in the old adage: "If I were going to Dublin, I would not start from here."
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: Ballymena.
        Dr. Cunningham: The Minister can have whichever Irish town or city he prefers.
        The Government seem to have started from the wrong point to reach proper, adequate and sensible conclusions about Britain's future needs in this exciting area of cabling and recabling the country.
        I stress that, given adequate safeguards not only for the public but for existing employees, cable expansion could bring enormous benefits to our economy. Handled properly, effectively and correctly, it could enhance the high reputation of British broadcasting, bring new jobs, boost our high technology industries and get us into export markets on a worldwide basis. However, whether any or all of that happens depends on decisions that the Government will take, we assume, in the near future. Again, it is disappointing at least and at worst a matter for concern that the Government have again failed to deliver their promise and come up with a White Paper in time for us to learn their thinking before the conclusion of the consideration of the Bill.
        I regret very much the Government's handling of the consultative stage of the process. Many people regard it as inadequate. The TUC conveyed to the Hunt inquiry and the Prime Minister its criticism of the unrepresentativeness of both ITAP and the Hunt committee. Predictably, it fell on deaf ears. It criticised the inadequacy of the time scale to which Hunt was asked to work and, as I said earlier, the arbitrary and unjustified restriction of Hunt's remit to broadcasting implications alone. I am sorry that we have received no adequate response to these points which have been made time and again.
        With regard to cable itself, there is every sign that the Government are on the brink of two further errors which could have serious consequences. The first concerns the principle of publicly regulated broadcasting. It is no accident that we have a high reputation in this area throughout the world. The underlying reason for that high reputation is public regulation and public accountability. The expansion of cable television represents a major extension of broadcasting into people's homes. The public are entitled to controls on cable television which are no less effective than those on other broadcasting. The Minister of State may not be aware of this, but even now I receive a regular flow of letters from constituents who are worried about obscenity, soft core pornography and excessive violence in the media, and do not want such material on tap—perhaps I should say on ITAP—in their houses. The Government have a serious responsibility in this matter.
        As I have already said, there is also the danger that the Government will fall for the temptation of the "fast buck" solution which has been condemned widely, among others by Lord Weinstock, and opposed and questioned by members of the Confederation of British Industry and others. Cable expansion offers a good chance to show how
        204
        the investment of the nation's wealth can bring real and extensive benefits to both the public and private sectors but it appears that the Government's approach, one guided more by dogma than any sense of an industrial strategy, will prevent Britain maximising the benefits that should accrue. The BBC, the IBA, the CBI, the TUC, and British Telecom and its unions have all expressed opposition to and concern about the Government's stance.
        We believe that the amendment should be accepted because a national network controlled by British Telecom with leasing arrangements to operators would be the best guarantee of success in terms of industrial policy, a national strategy for telecommunicaions and cable, maximising the benefits of investment and job potential, taking the best advantage of our world lead in technology and decent standards and proper public control. So far, on all these tests, Government policy has failed. That is why we shall press the amendment to a vote.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: We have had an interesting debate on cable. We also had an interesting debate on cable in Committee. That debate was more extensive but that was the way that the Committee operated. We have had two other debates on cable on the Floor of the House. One took place in the late summer of last year and another, more substantive debate in which the House was given an opportunity to discuss the Hunt report, took place on 2 December.
        5.15 pm
        The amendment is technically defective since it refers to cable systems, which are in fact telecommunications systems, but I do not rest my opposition to the amendment on the fact that it is technically defective. I cannot accept the amendment because under clause 2 the exclusive privilege of BT is to be removed along with BT's power to license its competitors, which will mean licensing other telecommunications systems.
        The House is familiar with our reasons for proposing this change in the structure of telecommunications. We believe that competition and diversity are desirable and, indeed, are necessary if the reasonable demands of the people of this country for telecommunications are to be met. Effective competition is not available under the present framework, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) pointed out on several occasions in his speech. My hon. Friend's speech was pertinent. I was rather surprised that so many Opposition Members objected to the way in which my hon. Friend developed his arguments. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of the time for debate.
        In Committee, they tried to monopolise the time for debate. I am glad that a Member who did not serve in Committee has seen fit to speak on Report because so often in our debates on Report that does not happen. The whole concept of Report stage is to bring the Bill back from the experts in Committee to the Floor of the House so that other Members who have not been privileged to serve—or cursed to serve—in Committee can participate. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) used that privilege yesterday and, of course, he did not abuse it. Nor did my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester today. Every Member has a right to speak on Report.
        My hon.. Friend the Member for Winchester attacked the concept of monopoly. It is because we believe that competition cannot be effective under the present framework that we intend to change that framework so that

        205
        all future telecommunications services will be licensed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and will be subject to one regulatory authority—the Office of Telecommunications. The benefits that we know come about when companies are free to respond to the needs of the market will be just as effective in the expansion of local cable networks as in the running of national telecommunications networks. It would be wholly inconsistent for us to remove the exclusive privilege of one area of BT's activity—that is, telecommunications network systems —only to reinforce it in another area—cable television systems. It would be especially damaging to retain BT's monopoly in a sector which shows great promise of future growth—growth which is likely to be infinitely faster—since monopoly is least satisfactory when it attempts to serve an expanding market. If a monopoly is controlling a static market or even one that is declining, it tends to operate unsatisfactorily, but it is more satisfactory in those circumstances than in an expanding market. The very nature of a monopoly means that it is not flexible enough, quick enough, fast-footed enough and fleet enough to pursue the opportunities that develop, arise and grow when a market is expanding.
        The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) expressed concern about what would be BT's position when cable systems operate locally across the country. That concern is expressed not only by BT. Mercury has expressed the same concern because it, too, is a public telecommunications operator. It is worried about the effect that local cable networks could have on its operations. Therefore the Government have decided to give BT and Mercury the exclusive privilege of inter-city and inter-network linking of cable systems. If a cable system in Plymouth needs to be linked to one in Leeds, the linking across the country will be done either by BT or by Mercury. Moreover, we have agreed that only where BT and Mercury are involved in the operation of cable systems may a cable operator provide voice telephony services. If a cable operator in Leeds wished to provide voice telephony over its cable system—from the proposals I have seen from various cable consortia, they are not greatly interested in voice telephony as a service at this stage, but they might become so as the technology develops—it would have to incorporate either BT or Mercury into its consortium. If it did not want to do that, it would not have to incorporate either BT or Mercury in the cable consortia for Leeds, Plymouth, Winchester or wherever.
        We do not believe that BT should act as the controlling body for the establishment and operation of cable. That is what the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) want. It is in the interests of the consumer and the cable providers and operators that such a task should be the responsibility of a new, independent statutory cable authority, as recommended in the Hunt report. The authority will exercise considerable influence through its responsibilities for considering applications and awarding franchises for cable operators. I emphasise that that will not be for cable provision. The House is familiar with the distinction between the two.
        The Opposition want a firm distinction to be drawn between cable provision and cable operation because it is the most effective way to plead BT's case—that it should be the sole cable provider and layer of cable across the
        206
        country and that there should be a separate function for cable operation, that being the transmission of interactive and entertainment services. We do not believe that there should be such a strict dichotomy. It is better for the market to decide whether a certain consortium should do one or the other, or straddle both activities. We have already announced that principle.
        The Opposition are trying to preserve the privilege of a narrow interest group in attempting to preserve the monopoly for BT. The parties below the Gangway, if they support that view, should appreciate exactly what they are supporting. I do not know to what extent they can appreciate the technicalities. We do not expect them to do so, but they should at least understand the principles for which they are being asked to vote. They are being asked to extend a monopoly. That is not a liberal principle—
        Mr. David Penhaligon rose—
        Mr. Baker: Ah, a Liberal spokesman.
        Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister outline his qualifications for speaking in the House on technical matters?
        Mr. Baker: I always look forward to any statement of policy from the Liberal party on any technological matter. I find it extraordinary that the Liberal party, on the most important technological Bill of the Session, did not see fit to ask a member of its party to serve on the Committee. That showed the Liberals' indifference to the whole area of technological activity—the fastest growing area in both our country and the western world. The Liberal party, through its absence, has shown that it has no policy or interest in the subject.
        The hon. Gentleman's party is being invited to support the extension of the monopoly that BT currently enjoys. The Bill will end that monopoly. It will end the exclusive privilege of BT's workers to be the only workers in the country allowed to provide telecommunications services. I would have thought that the Liberal and SDP parties would have been only too keen to support the Bill.
        The amendment seeks to extend that monopoly to the whole of cable television so that every town, village and city can be cabled up only by BT. Is that what the Liberal and SDP parties want? They have not given any thought to the matter. I know what the Labour party policy is because it published a document today. It, at least, contained 71 words about telecommunications-71 words about one of the fastest-growing and largest industries in the country. It stated:
        "A national cable system will make possible a wide range of new telecommunications services, greater variety in the provision of television, and a major stimulus to British technology and industry. But it must be under firm public control."
        Mr. John Grant rose—
        Mr. Baker: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman must listen to all of the 71 words. He will vote for the amendment later. He voted for such a policy when he was a member of the Labour party. He will now vote for it today even though he is no longer a member of the Labour party. The document continued:
        "A publicly-owned British Telecommunications will thus be given the sole responsibility to create a national, broadband network (including Mercury, the new privately-owned telecommunications system for business)"

        207
        That will also be swept up, nationalised, and pushed into the broad band cable network. Opposition parties below the Gangway will support that. The document continued:
        "which integrates telecommunications broadcasts."
        We know what the Labour party wants. It is consistent. I hope to find out what the SDP wants.
        Mr. John Grant: I find the Minister's statement extraordinary. I thought that we were debating the Bill, not Labour party policy. The SDP has made its position clear about the Bill. We shall not support the amendment, but we shall not support the Government either. Neither side of the House will have the opportunity to gang up. The Minister criticised Labour party policy, but we have not yet seen the Government's policy on paper. We are still waiting for the White Paper. When we see the whites of their eyes, we shall make our decision.
        Mr. Baker: The attitude of SDP Members is clear. They do not like what the Labour party is saying because it is too clear, they do not like what the Conservative party is saying because that is too clear—both are too clear, so they want us to join them in the fog in the middle. Their policy is impenetrable.
        A cartoon exhibition at the Royal Festival hall shows a cartoon of the SDP by Gerald Scarfe—it is a beautiful glass case with the letters "SDP" in it, and nothing else. That summarises the whole attitude of the parties below the Gangway.
        The Government are opposed to the telecommunications monopoly. It is a black and white issue. One either wants BT to have a monopoly or one does not. Abstention cannot be justified on this amendment. There is a choice, and choices must be made, it is no good the SDP always saying that the two parties gang up on it—for example, that the electors of Darlington ganged up. It is an absurd proposition.
        It will no doubt please the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to know that I acknowledge that BT has much to offer, both in expertise and in its network of ducts. Since the introduction of competition, it has become a more commercially minded organisation. We believe that as many people as possible should be involved. The Hunt report recommended that we should not specify too closely the technology that should be used. There are two technologies for cable, the star system and the tree and branch system.
        I shall not delay the House by speaking about those systems, although I should be delighted to expatiate at great length on their different characteristics. Suffice it to say that technological changes are happening so rapidly that the developments on tree and branch technology, which is the older technology invented in Britain, give it many of the characteristics of the star system.
        As I said in the debate on 2 December, the eventual technological drift will be towards the star-switched system. We have devised a system to encourage that. At the same time, we do not wish to choke the possibility of certain cable consortia laying tree and branch systems that are capable of being upgraded to star systems. I am especially concerned that we should enhance British technology and industry.
        One reason why I am such an enthusiast for cable television and broad band cable networks is that I look upon that as a tremendous opportunity for Britain that will create jobs for British workers. I have not been elected to create jobs in Detroit, Michigan or Chicago, I have been
        208
        elected to try to promote jobs and activity in Britain. I assure the Opposition that one of the greatest areas of opportunity lies in building cable networks. That is agreed by everyone who has thought about it, but not by the Social Democrats. Neutrality and abstention do not involve commitment, but they are what we shall get from the two parties below the Gangway opposite today.
        5.30 pm
        The potential is vast. I want as many British firms as possible to be involved. There are great opportunities in the United Kingdom, not only in the development of equipment and the laying of systems, but in export potential. One of the reasons why I am so keen to press ahead quickly and strongly with cable is that we are now moving more rapidly than France, Germany or any other country on the continent. If we can build a technological base in cable in Britain in the next two to three years, we shall have an immense export potential. That is broadly agreed upon by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
        The opportunities exist. That is why we commissioned the ITAP report, which was published just a year ago. I strongly reject any criticism of it. It provided the essential stimulus to ensure that the movement started rolling. I also strongly resent criticisms of the Hunt report. It is a distinguished and authoritative report, which will be seen in the history of the cable revolution as it develops as a significant report that set out the broad guidelines that will allow us to expand.
        Although some people are sceptical about cable, investors in private industry are not. Consortia for the cabling of our major cities such as Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow are already forming. I emphasise that the technology is being developed in Britain. I am proud of that. Thorn EMI is adapting Teletext technology for encryption and addressability, which are two important parts of cable systems as they provide the ability to send a message to a subscriber and ensure that that message is secure. That is fundamental with electronic funds transfer, home banking or anything of that type.
        Racal has already announced that it is tying up with Oak Industries of California for installation, running and peripheral technology for cable. The Quantel company, which is a world leader in certain types of television equipment and which employs many hundreds of people, is tying up with Cabletime of California and advancing proposals and technology for using the existing network of drains and sewers for cable provision. Many other companies are working up plans.
        In the past month, I have spoken to all the major British companies in this business such as GEC, Plessey, Ferranti and those that I have mentioned, and asked them what they are doing. I assure the House that a great deal of research and development work is taking place in British industry. That would not have happened if we had sat on our hands a year ago and not published the ITAP report or pressed ahead and published the Hunt report.
        I want the greatest possibilities for opportunity to exist:. We therefore strongly oppose the argument that the business should be left entirely in the hands of BT. We have said that if BT wants to be a member of a consortium to cable Plymouth, Leeds or Basingstoke, for example, it can but it will not be given a prescriptive right to do so. There will be choice. If a consortium to cable a town or city wants to involve BT it can do so, but such

        209
        involvement will not be compulsory. BT brings a lot to the table in any negotiations on these matters. I am sure that that decision is correct.
        Some people who are thinking about whether BT should be involved in cable consortia will be paying close attention to the attitude that is taken by the Post Office Engineering Union soon about interconnecting. If the main union in BT is rash enough not to interconnect Mercury, what guarantee will there be that it will not use the same practices and take the same attitudes when it is involved in cable consortia? No investors would want to go into any consortium with that threat overhanging them. I hope, therefore, that wiser counsels will prevail.
        The Government are committed to helping all of that to happen and to creating the right regulatory climate for companies to grow. BT will be involved but we do not want to make an exclusive right. I am against exclusive rights and the vested privilege of some groups of workers to be the only ones who should provide such services. The White Paper will be published shortly after Easter. It will describe our further views on regulations and set out the Government's attitude to the various points that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has raised on such issues as franchises, pay-per-view and quotas.
        Above all, we want to keep up the momentum that has been generated in the past 18 months. Our decision to introduce competition in, for example, cellular radio is likely to make us the first in Europe with a national network. That means opportunities for British industry. We want that type of opportunity to be seized with regard to cable. I am sure that it can be grasped much more effectively if there is choice and variety rather than a monopoly by BT.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:
        The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 288.

        Division No. 105]

        [5.36 pm

        AYES

        Abse, Leo

        Cowans, Harry

        Adams, Allen

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

        Allaun, Frank

        Crowther, Stan

        Anderson, Donald

        Cryer, Bob

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Dalyell, Tam

        Atkinson, U. (H'gey.)

        Davidson, Arthur

        Bagier, Gordon AT.

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

        Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

        Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

        Deakins, Eric

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

        Dewar, Donald

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Dixon, Donald

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Dormand, Jack

        Booth, Rt Hon Albert

        Douglas, Dick

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Dubs, Alfred

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

        Duffy, A. E. P.

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

        Dunnett, Jack

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Buchan, Norman

        Eadie, Alex

        Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

        Eastham, Ken

        Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

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

        Campbell, Ian

        English, Michael

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Evans, loan (Aberdare)

        Canavan, Dennis

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Cant, R. B.

        Faulds, Andrew

        Carter-Jones, Lewis

        Field, Frank

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Fitt, Gerard

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

        Ford, Ben

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

        Forrester, John

        Conlan, Bernard

        Foster, Derek

        Cook, Robin F.

        Foulkes, George

        210

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

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

        Garrett, John (Norwich S)

        O'Halloran, Michael

        Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

        O'Neill, Martin

        George, Bruce

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Palmer, Arthur

        Golding, John

        Park, George

        Gourlay, Harry

        Parker, John

        Graham, Ted

        Parry, Robert

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

        Pavitt, Laurie

        Hardy, Peter

        Pendry, Tom

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

        Prescott, John

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Price, C. (Lewisham W)

        Haynes, Frank

        Race, Reg

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

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

        Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

        Home Robertson, John

        Rooker, J. W.

        Homewood, William

        Rowlands, Ted

        Hooley, Frank

        Sever, John

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Sheerman, Barry

        Huckfield, Les

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Hughes, Mark (Durham)

        Silverman, Julius

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

        Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

        Snape, Peter

        John, Brynmor

        Soley, Clive

        Johnson, James (Hull West)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Jones, Barry (East Flint)

        Stallard, A. W.

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

        Kerr, Russell

        Stott, Roger

        Kilfedder, James A.

        Strang, Gavin

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Straw, Jack

        Lamond, James

        Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        Leighton, Ronald

        Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

        Lestor, Miss Joan

        Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

        Litherland, Robert

        Thome, Stan (Preston South)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Tilley, John

        Lyon, Alexander (York)

        Tinn, James

        McCartney, Hugh

        Torney, Tom

        McElhone, Mrs Helen

        Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

        McGuire, Michael (Ince)

        Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Warden, Gareth

        McKelvey, William

        Weetch, Ken

        MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

        Welsh, Michael

        McNamara, Kevin

        White, Frank R.

        McTaggart, Robert

        White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

        McWilliam, John

        Whitehead, Phillip

        Marks, Kenneth

        Whitlock, William

        Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

        Wig ley, Dafydd

        Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

        Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

        Mason, Rt Hon Roy

        Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

        Maynard, Miss Joan

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

        Meacher, Michael

        Wilson, William (C'try SE)

        Mikardo, Ian

        Winnick, David

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Woodall, Alec

        Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

        Woolmer, Kenneth

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

        Morton, George

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

        Mr. James Hamilton and

        Newens, Stanley

        Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

        NOES

        Alexander, Richard

        Banks, Robert

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Alton, David

        Beith, A. J.

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Bendall, Vivian

        Ancram, Michael

        Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

        Arnold, Tom

        Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

        Best, Keith

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

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone,)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        211

        Blackburn, John

        Grimond, Rt Hon J.

        Blaker, Peter

        Grist, Ian

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Grylls, Michael

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Hamilton, Hon A.

        Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Bowden, Andrew

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Hannam,John

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Bright, Graham

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Brinton, Tim

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

        Hawksley, Warren

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Henderson, Barry

        Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Hicks, Robert

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

        Hill, James

        Buck, Antony

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Budgen, Nick

        Holland, Philip (Carlton)

        Burden, Sir Frederick

        Hooson, Tom

        Butcher, John

        Hordern, Peter

        Carlisle, John (Luton West)

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

        Howells, Geraint

        Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

        Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Churchill, W. S.

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

        Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

        Clegg, Sir Walter

        Jessel, Toby

        Cockeram, Eric

        Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

        Colvin, Michael

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Cormack, Patrick

        Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

        Corrie, John

        Kaberry, Sir Donald

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Critchley, Julian

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Crouch, David

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        Knox, David

        Dover, Denshore

        Lang, Ian

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Langford-Holt, Sir John

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        Latham, Michael

        Durant, Tony

        Lee, John

        Dykes, Hugh

        Le Merchant, Spencer

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Eggar, Tim

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Eyre, Reginald

        Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

        Fairbairn, Nicholas '

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

        Loveridge, John

        Faith, Mrs Sheila

        Luce, Richard

        Farr, John

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Fell, Sir Anthony

        Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

        Fenner, Mrs Peggy

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Finsberg, Geoffrey

        MacGregor, John

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

        MacKay, John (Argyll)

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

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

        Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

        McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

        Forman, Nigel

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Fst)

        Fox, Marcus

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

        Madel, David

        Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

        Major, John

        Fry, Peter

        Marland, Paul

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Marlow, Antony

        Gardner, Sir Edward

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Marten, Rt Hon Neil

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Mates, Michael

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Mawby, Ray

        Goodhew, Sir Victor

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Gorst, John

        Mayhew, Patrick

        Gow, Ian

        Mellor, David

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Grant, Sir Anthony

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Greenway, Harry

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Grieve, Percy

        Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

        Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)

        Moate, Roger

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        212

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Speed, Keith

        Moore, John

        Speller, Tony

        Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

        Spence, John

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

        Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Mudd, David

        Sproat, Iain

        Murphy, Christopher

        Squire, Robin

        Myles, David

        Stainton, Keith

        Neale, Gerrard

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Needham, Richard

        Stanley, John

        Nelson, Anthony

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Neubert, Michael

        Steen, Anthony

        Newton, Tony

        Stevens, Martin

        Onslow, Cranley

        Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

        Osborn, John

        Stokes, John

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Tapsell, Peter

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

        Pawsey, James

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        Percival, Sir Ian

        Thompson, Donald

        Peyton, Rt Hon John

        Thome, Neil (llford South)

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Pitt, William Henry

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Pollock, Alexander

        Townsend, Cyril D, (B'hoath)

        Porter, Barry

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Vaughan, Dr Gerard

        Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

        Viggers, Peter

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Waddington, David

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Walker, Rt Hon P.(Wcoster)

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Walker, B. (Perth)

        Ridley, Hon Nicholas

        Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Wall, Sir Patrick

        Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Waller, Gary

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        Walters, Dennis

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Ward, John

        Rossi, Hugh

        Warren, Kenneth

        Rost, Peter

        Watson, John

        Royle, Sir Anthony

        Wells, Bowen

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Wells, John (Maidstone)

        St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

        Wheeler, John

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Whitney, Raymond

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Williams, D.(Montgomery)

        Shepherd, Richard

        Wolfson, Mark

        Silvester, Fred

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Sims, Roger

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

        Mr. Carol Mather and

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Mr. John Cope.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 14, leave out '46' and insert '47'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this is will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
        Mr. Baker: These three amendments are a consequence of the removal from the Bill in Committee of a clause which made it an offence for a person to affix advertisements or notices to the property of a public telecommunications operator. The Committee considered that such notices were often a help rather than a hindrance to the public, but also noted that there were provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 that could be used to control the fixing of notices. I agreed with the Committee that the retention of this criminal offence was undesirable.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 22, leave out `and'.
        No. 4, in page 3, line 23, at end insert
        'and section 46 (prohibition of affixing placards etc. on British Telecommunications' property).'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 3
        GUIDELINES FOR SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR
        Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, line 24, leave out clause 3.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 4

        MEANING OF "TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS
        Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 4, line 32, leave out 'services" means services' and insert 'service" means a service'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
        Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have not said a word on the Bill so far, but I wish to ask the Minister some questions on this amendment. It changes the word "services" to "service". Does this have the effect of denying BT's right to operate the interference contract, which employs about 280 people in looking, for example, for illegal CB radio? I ask this because I have just been advised today that an announcement was made that in December 1982, BT gave 12 months' notice to the Home Office of withdrawal from its contract.
        There are about 280 people employed in this service, many of them in Southend-on-Sea. If the Minister cannot give me a reply now, will he drop me a note to say whether this is the case, whether there will be consultations with the men concerned and whether he will give an assurance that in the changeover there will be fair and proper consultations with the men who have worked at a good job for a long time and given excellent service, so that they will know what will happen to their jobs?
        Mr. Golding: The Post Office Engineering Union is opposed to what BT has proposed. It believes that radio investigation work is best done by the men who have done it so well for so many years.
        The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): The amendment is not relevant to the inquiries that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has made. However, as you have given us this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I congratulate him on spotting this topical matter. I am delighted to take up his offer to write to him about the guarantees that he requires on fair and proper consulations. I reassure him that this amendment is a minor one, which is there—
        Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend sure?
        Mr. Butcher: I am absolutely sure. The amendment is there purely for a drafting purpose. My hon. Friend has raised a serious point and I shall endeavour, as a matter of great urgency, to give him the assurances that he requires.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 7

        POWER TO LICENSE SYSTEMS
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 1 leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert `grantor'.
        This simply corrects an error not spotted earlier. As drafted, subsection (5) of clause 7 requires the publication of all licences issued under clause 7 by either the Secretary of State or the Director General but only the Secretary of State can decide the manner of such publication. The effect of this amendment is to empower the Director General also to decide on the manner of publication of any licences that he may grant.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 9, line 4, leave out 'specification'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 30.
        Mr. Baker: Amendment No. 8 simply serves to improve the drafting of clause 7(6) by removing the word "specification". This is redundant, as it is already covered by the word "description", and we are seeking to remove superfluous words.
        Amendment No. 30 is a drafting amendment, like amendment No. 8. It seeks to remove the word "specification", which is similarly redundant.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Mr. Golding: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 9, leave out lines 8 to 13.
        When shall we see the draft licence?
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has made both the longest and the shortest speech in the proceedings on the Bill. There is a vast difference between the two, most of which is best forgotten. I assume that the hon. Gentleman had an intention other than just asking that question in tabling the amendment, which, if it were to be passed, would have a crippling effect on the Bill. I do not know whether he realises that. I shall explain why that is so before coming to the direct question.
        The amendment would delete subsection (8) of clause 7, which ensures that, when the Secretary of State grants the licence which British Telecommunications will need on the appointed day, he need not consult the Director General under subsection (1)(a) of clause 7 or publish a notice under subsection (3) of clause 8. The amendment is therefore superficially attractive as it would oblige the Secretary of State to consult the Director General, to publish a notice inviting representations and objections to the licence and to consider any representations or objections that he receives. I must therefore explain to the House why the amendment would prevent the Bill being put into effect. I trust that the hon. Member will not press it to a Division.
        One of the main purposes of the Bill is to abolish the "exclusive privilege" under which BT operates at present and to ensure that BT, like any other operator, is licensed. The exclusive privilege will, however, end on the appointed day when the Bill—except part IV, the privatisation part—enters into force. On that day BT will start to operate under a licence. Indeed, unless there is a valid licence in force, BT would be committing a criminal

        215
        offence if it continued to run its system. Consequently the Government must take steps to ensure that the BT licence is validly granted before the appointed day so that it can come into effect on that day. The BT licence cannot come into force a week or a month after the appointed day.
        Part II of the Bill lays down procedures that must be followed before licences are granted under the Bill. These procedures require the Secretary of State, before he grants a licence, to consult the Director General of Telecommunications under clause 7(1)(a) and in the case of licences granted to public telecommunication operators to publish a notice under clause 8(3) so that members of the public and interested parties can make objections. Unless the Secretary of State carries out these procedures—this is the point—before granting a licence, the licence itself will be invalid.
        As I have explained, the BT licence must be granted so that it comes into effect on the appointed day. This means that it must be drafted beforehand. The Director General will, however, be appointed only on that day and clause 8(3) comes into effect only on that day. Consequently, it will he impossible to consult the Director General before the BT licence is granted. It will also be impossible to carry out the procedures laid down in clause 8(3) before the appointed day. That is why clause 7(8) has been included in the Bill.
        Unless clause 7(8), which the amendment seeks to delete, remains in the Bill, a Catch 22 situation would arise. If clause 7(8) is deleted, the Secretary of State would be bound to consult the Director General and to issue a notice inviting public objections and so on. These procedures would take at least eight weeks—28 days for representations to be made and at least that time to consider them. In that period BT would not have a licence and would either operate illegally or not at all. That cannot be allowed. On the other hand, the Secretary of State could attempt to get round the problem by issuing the licence without consulting the Director General or publishing a notice inviting representations but, if he did this, the validity of the BT licence could be challenged. This also cannot be allowed. Clause 7(8) therefore allows the Secretary of State to grant BT's licence without going through these procedures. It is essential that it remains in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.
        The hon. Gentleman asked me when we will see the BT licence. I know that in Committee the Opposition made great play of this point when they were deliberately trying to obstruct progress on the Bill. They successfully wasted much time talking about the licence but the House will realise that that criticism was unsubstantiated.
        Throughout the preparation of the Bill the Government have been at pains to make information available to the House and the Committee. When the Bill was published we circulated a detailed note to describe the regulatory arrangements. We went on to publish on 25 January, during the Committee stage of the Bill, our detailed proposals for the BT licence, and we invited comments on our proposals. We described our views as "preliminary" because we had no wish to publish hard and fast views on what we intended the licence to contain before we heard what interested parties thought. Indeed, I should have been open to considerable criticisms if I had slapped the licence on the Committee table and said, "There it is." Instead, we described our proposals in everyday English, not in legal jargon, and invited comments and criticisms. In
        216
        practice, our preliminary document, in simple non-legal English, may be more detailed than the final licence issued to BT.
        6 pm
        When we are distanced by time from the Committee stage I think it will be seen that we acted in the best way. We tried to act in a way that was open, and the preliminary proposals that we had for the licence have been subject to much debate in this House. Many hon. Members have commented on them. I am sure that that was the sensible way to proceed.
        We explained carefully that our proposals could not be in a final form because the House would want to amend the Bill, which would make it necessary to amend our proposals for the licence. Yesterday the House agreed to a modified clause 3, which will have an impact on the licence. We also explained that we wanted to take account of the views of other interested parties. We are now receiving many helpful comments, some of them including new points, and we intend to consider them carefully. However, we have not yet received cornments from all interested parties. For example, I still await comments from the British Telecommunications Unions committee. I have had comments from the Post Office Engineering Union committee, but I have not yet received comments from the Union of Communication Workers, of which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) is a member and a strong supporter. Moreover, I am sure that Opposition Members would want me to listen to their views before I take a final decision and before the licence is translated into legal terminology. I also want to take particular account of the views of the National Farmers Union and of organisations representing the disabled. I do not intend to draft the final licence until I know their detailed views.
        I expect to complete my consideration of representations by about the end of May, and to commence detailed drafting of the legal licence document in June. A draft of the legal licence document will be circulated widely and copies of the draft legal licence document will be placed in the House before the summer recess.
        Mr. Golding: Now that I learn that this amendment would scupper the Bill, how could it possibly be withdrawn?
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 8

        CONDITIONS OF LICENCES
        Amendment made: No. 10, in page 9, line 17, leave out from 'the' to 'above' in line 18 and insert
        `the duties imposed on him by section (General duties of Secretary of State and Director).'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 9

        THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CODE
        Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 11, line 33, leave out 'limiting' and insert 'qualifying'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 105 and 106.
        Mr. Butcher: Amendment 104 is a drafting amendment. Clause 9(3) provides that where a person is

        217
        licensed to operate the telecommunications code, the licence shall have effect with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as may be specified for the purpose of limiting the rights exercisable by that person by virtue of the code. The amendment replaces the word "limiting" with "qualifying", which it is felt is a more appropriate word in this context.
        The provision inserted by amendment No. 105 enables the Secretary of State to require a public telecommunications operator authorised to operate the telecommunications code to place a bond with a person nominated by the Secretary of State. In the event of the liquidation of such an operator, the financial resources required, for instance, to remove apparatus abandoned by the operator or to reinstate a road surface dug up by the operator would then be available.
        Amendment No. 106 merely replaces the tail end of clause 9(3), which is deleted by amendment No. 105, in a new subsection of clause 9.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 105, in page 11, line 34, leave out from 'code' to end of line 37 and insert—
        '(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, the conditions there mentioned may include such conditions as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient for the purpose of securing that funds are available for meeting such liabilities of the person to whom the code is applied as may arise from the exercise by that person of rights conferred by or in accordance with the code.
        (3B) The Secretary of State may assign to the Director, for the purposes of any condition falling within subsection (3A) above, such functions as he thinks fit; and, any such condition may impose on the person to whom the telecommunications code is applied a requirement from time to time to make or to vary financial arrangements in accordance with directions given by a person and in a manner specified in the condition.'.
        No. 106, in page 12, line 42, at end insert—
        '(7A) In exercising the powers conferred on him by virtue of this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect the environment.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

      Clause 10

        MODIFICATION OF LICENCE CONDITIONS BY AGREEMENT
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 11 in page 13, line 37, at end insert—
        '( ) it appears to him that the modification should be made, if at all, under section 13 below;'.
        This is a more significant amendment. In Committee, the proposals for the amendment of telecommunication licences came under detailed scrutiny. We spent a considerable time debating them. As a result, we promised to make a few changes in the Bill.
        It may be helpful if I remind hon. Members that telecommunication licences can be amended in two ways. First, if the Director General and the licensee agree that an amendment is desirable, the director can amend the licence under clause 10, after publishing his intention and taking account of representations. Second, if the licensee does not agree to an amendment proposed by the director, or if the director wants a second opinion, the director can make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under clause 11. If the MMC concludes that a matter specified in the reference operates against the public interest, the director is obliged to amend the licence under clause 13 so as to remedy the adverse effects.
        218
        Hon. Members will have noted that, in general, the director alone has responsibility for amending licences, without reference to the Secretary of State. We have argued throughout that that is one of the Bill's strong advantages, because we do not want successive Ministers, of whichever Administration may come to power, to change the basic licence conditions. However, the Secretary of State can give a direction to stop the amendment of a licence in limited circumstances—in the interests of national security or relations with overseas Governments, or when the amendment concerns conditions in the telecommunications code that are likely to be about environmental matters. The House will remember the various examples that were given in Committee.
        In Committee, some hon. Members expressed concern that the director would come to associate himself too closely with the objectives of a licensee, and not take sufficient account of the interests of others, such as the customers of the licensee in question. I do not regard that as at all likely, as the director whom my right hon. Friend will appoint will be a person of integrity accustomed to taking decisions after weighing up all the relevant interests. I should also point out that, in amending a licence, the director will have to pay regard to the duties in clause 3, which restrict what he may do.
        Nevertheless, I accept that it is not unreasonable to seek extra protection. I therefore propose to amend the Bill so as to permit the Secretary of State to direct the director not to amend a licence under clause 10 if the Secretary of State considers that the amendment should only be made after the issue has been considered by the MMC. I emphasise that this change does not permit the Secretary of State to block a licence amendment. It simply brings in the MMC. That is quite consistent with our approach throughout the Bill of providing stability in policy towards telecommunications and removing the possibility of interference for reasons of short-term political expediency.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 11

        LICENCE MODIFICATION REFERENCES TO COMMISSION
        Amendments made: No. 12, in page 15, line 13, leave out from 'Commission' to 'shall' in line 15.
        No. 13, in page 15, line 16, leave out 'mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 3(1)' and insert
        'as respects which duties are imposed on the Secretary of State and the Director by section (General duties of Secretary of State and Director)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 12

        REPORTS ON LICENCE MODIFICATION REFERENCES
        Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 16, line 42, after 'interest', insert
        'or the commercial interests of any person'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 123.
        Mr. Butcher: Parts of the licences issued by British Telecom under the powers of the 1981 Act and earlier legislation are commercially confidential. At present the Bill does not permit the Secretary of State to exclude from the register of licences which he is obliged to establish under clause 14 commercially confidential matters in

        219
        licences which he issues or which are passed to him under the transitional arrangements in paragraph 1 of schedule 5 to the Bill. Nor does the Secretary of State have power to direct the Director General to exclude such matters when the Director General publishes reports made to him under clause 12 by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on licence amendment references. In these cases, the Secretary of State can act to exclude matters only on the grounds that publication would be against the public interest. That is by no means synonymous with the commercial interests of companies, so I propose that the Bill should be amended in clause 12 and clause 14 to permit the Secretary of State to direct the Director General to exclude matters on these additional grounds.

      Clause 14
        REGISTER OF LICENCES
        Amendment made: No. 123, in page 18, line 14, at end insert 'or the commercial interests of any person'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Clause 15

        SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH LICENCE CONDITIONS
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 18, line 39, leave out from 'shall' to 'notice' in line 41 and insert 'give'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15 to 19.
        Mr. Baker: Clause 15 empowers the Director General to make an order to require a licensee to conform with the conditions of his licence. The director must first send a note of his intentions to the licensee and take account of his views.
        The director can enforce the order himself, but in addition subsection (6) of the clause brings into play a provision in the Fair Trading Act which permits an aggrieved person to take action in the courts to enforce the order made by the director. Since the director is not obliged to publish his intention to issue an order, or the order itself, it would be difficult for a person to take court action.
        I therefore propose to amend the Bill so as to require the director to publish his intention to issue an order and to state its terms, as well as sending a copy to the licensee. If an order is made, it too must be published. This will make feasible court action by a third party to enforce the order. It will have the additional advantage of making the actions of the director and breaches of a condition of a licence by a licensee more transparent.
        I commend the proposal to the House.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 15, in page 18, line 42, leave out from 'order' to end of line 42 and insert
        'and setting out its effect'.
        No. 16, in page 19, line 5, leave out 'the service' and insert 'publication'.
        No. 17, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'draft' and insert 'proposed'.
        No. 18, page 19, line 9, at end insert—
        '(2A) A notice under subsection (2) above shall be given by publication in such manner as the Director considers appropriate
        220
        and by sending a copy of the notice to the person against whom the order is proposed to be made (in this section and section 16 below referred to as "the operator"):
        No. 19, in page 19, line 24, after 'shall', insert
        'publish the order in such manner as he considers appropriate and'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 17

        APPROVAL OF CONTRACTORS
        Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 20, line 14, at end insert—
        '(1A) A person applying for an approval under this section may be required by the person to whom the application is made to comply with such requirements as the person to whom the application is made may think appropriate; and those requirements may include a requirement to satisfy some other person with respect to any matter.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 21, 119 and 22 to 29.
        Mr. Butcher: If a licence granted under clause 7 refers to the carrying out of maintenance, installation, repair and so forth by approved persons, the Secretary of State and the director have power under clause 17 to approve people to carry out those operations. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology told the House on 7 February, we intend to open up the maintenance of all new call-routing apparatus to competition, whether the call-routing apparatus is large or small, analogue or digital, provided the maintenance is carried out by an approved person. There will be appropriate conditions in the licences of public telecommunication systems. Maintainers will he given approval only if they can demonstrate the necessary degree of competence, quality control, backup for spares and technical information so that the risk of interference to service from poorly maintained apparatus is minimal. The necessary technical assessment will be carried out by the British Standards Institution and I am glad to tell the House that a suitable assessment scheme has now been prepared by BSI, which is already dealing with the first inquiries. There will be periodic inspections of maintainers by BSI to make sure that the quality of service does not deteriorate.
        The Secretary of State or the director will not normally approve a maintainer under clause 17 unless the maintainer has first been registered by BSI. The Secretary of State or the director may occasionally decide against giving approval—for example, if there were considerations of national security.
        Amendments Nos. 20 and 119 merely transfer the present subsection (4) nearer to the beginning of clause 1.7, where it fits more logically. Amendment No. 21 makes it absolutely clear that the continuing periodic inspection of maintainers, which I have already mentioned, is permitted by statute. Amendment No. 22 is consequential to amendment No. 20.
        Amendment No. 23 makes good an omission from subsection (7). It ensures that the Secretary of State is obliged to send the director copies of approvals and particulars of variations or withdrawals only in the case of approvals that the Secretary of State himself has given.
        6.15 pm
        Amendment No. 24 removes a slight restriction in subsection (8) which provides for the payment of fees by

        221
        persons applying for approval under the clause. The amendment makes it possible for someone other than the applicant, such as his agent, to pay the fee and thus avoids a possible obstacle to sensible commercial arrangements between, for example, a manufacturer and a distributor.
        Amendments Nos. 25 to 29 relate to clause 19. They are technical amendments designed to remove any doubt about the statutory authority for the apparatus approval arrangements. As the House knows, these arrangements centre on the British Approvals Board for Telecommunications, an independent private sector body. BABT is a compact, expert organisation which does not possess test facilities of its own but places test work contracts with suitable laboratories and is able to obtain keenly competitive prices. This will help to keep approval fees as low as possible, having regard both to the complexity of the apparatus under test and the nature of the tests laid down in the standards.
        An essential ingredient of the type of approval procedure for apparatus supplied in bulk is the monitoring of quality control in the factory. Without this, there would be no adequate assurance that apparatus coming off the production line was the same as the test samples examined on behalf of BABT.
        Amendment No. 25 makes it clear that an approval authority can insist that appropriate requirements are met. Thus, BABT will be able to insist on quality control procedures in factories. The amendment also requires BABT to require a satisfactory test report from a laboratory that it does not itself run.
        The first part of amendment No. 27 provides for monitoring of products and quality control to be carried out by BABT so long as an approval for a bulk produced item remains in force. The second part removes any doubt that a person other than the Secretary of State or the director may charge fees for laboratory tests, factory assessments and the like required by an approvals authority.
        Amendments No. 26 and 28 make drafting improvements to clause 19(3) and allow apparatus to be approved subject to conditions. Sometimes the conditions will refer to the use of the apparatus. The Bill as drafted limits the effect of approvals to the connection of the apparatus. The amendments widen the drafting to cover conditions of use as well.
        Amendment No. 29 resembles amendment No. 24. It gives flexibility for approval fees to be paid by someone other than the person applying for approval.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 21, in page 20, line 23, at end insert
        `and any such condition may impose on the person to whom the approval is given a requirement from time to time to satisfy any person with respect to any matter.'.
        No. 119, in page 20, leave out lines 24 to 29.
        No. 22, in page 20, line 33, leave out '(4)' and insert `(1A) or (3)'.
        No. 23, in page 20, line 40, after 'given', insert `by him'.
        No. 24, in page 21, line 2, leave out `by persons applying for' and insert 'in respect of'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

      Clause 19

        APPROVAL ETC. OF APPARATUS
        Amendments made: No. 25, in page 21, line 35, at end insert—
        '(1A) A person applying for an approval under this section may be required by the person to whom the application is made to comply with such requirements as the person to whom the application is made may think appropriate; and those requirements may include a requirement to satisfy some other person with respect to any matter.'.
        No. 26, in page 21, line 38, leave out from 'apply' to `any' in line 39 and insert
        `either for the purposes of a particular telecommunications system or for the purposes of'.
        No. 27, in page 22, line 3, at end insert
        'and any such condition may impose on the person to whom the approval is given a requirement from time to time to satisfy any person with respect to any matter.
        (3A) Nothing in this section shall preclude a person (not being the Secretary of State or the Director) who is charged with determining any matter for the purposes of any requirement imposed in pursuance of subsection (1A) or (3) above from requiring any payment to be made in respect of the carrying out of any test or other assessment made by him.'.
        No. 28, in page 22, line 20, leave out 'connection to'.
        No. 29, in page 23, line 16, leave out `by persons applying for' and insert 'in respect of'.
        No. 30, in page 23, line 21, leave out 'specification or'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

      Clause 20
        DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS UNDER SECTION 19
        Amendment made: No. 31, in page 23, line 26, leave out clause 20.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Clause 27

        RATING IN NORTHERN IRELAND
        Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 32 in page 27, line 26, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert
        'Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland (in this section referred to as "the Department")'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 33 to 38.
        Mr. Butcher: The amendments are largely technical. They simply correct an anomaly in the clause as drafted. Clause 27 concerns rating in Northern Ireland and provides that any order should be made by the Secretary of State. We have since been advised that rating is a transferred matter for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Therefore, it is more appropriate that the local Department rather than the Secretary of State should make the orders. The amendments simply replace references to the Secretary of State by references to the Department throughout the clause.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 33, in page 27, line 32, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Department'.
        No. 34, in page 27, line 34, leave out 'he' and insert `the Department'.
        No. 35, in page 27, line 41, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Department'.
        No. 36, in page 28, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Department'.
        No. 37, in page 28, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Department'.
        No. 38, in page 28, line 26, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 31 and insert
        'negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

      Clause 39

        INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM
        Mr. Charles R. Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 35, line 11, at end insert
        `or in the course of, or in connection with a trade dispute with a telecommunications operator'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall discuss amendment No. 40, in page 35, line 24, at end insert—
        '(3) No person being an employee of a company running a telecommunication system shall be guilty of an offence—

        (a) under section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863, insofar as that section makes it an offence for any person employed by the Post Office wilfully to omit or delay to transmit or deliver any message or by any wilful act or omission to prevent or delay the transmission or delivery of any message; or

        (b) under section 20 of the Telegraph Act 1868, as amended, insofar as that section makes it an offence for any person having official duties connected with the Post Office, or acting on behalf of the Postmaster General, contrary to his duty, to intercept the contents or any part of the contents of any telegraphic messages or any message entrusted to the Postmaster General for the purpose of transmission.

        If the conduct in question takes place exclusively or primarily in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute with those running telecommunications systems.
        (4) No person shall be guilty of soliciting, inciting or procuring or attempting to solicit, incite or procure or aiding or abetting the commission by any employee of companies running telecommunications systems of an offence under this section, section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863 or section 20 of the Telegraph Act 1868, unless it be established that one or more of the persons so solicited, incited or procured, or aided or abetted or in relation to them an attempt to solicit, incite or procure as aforesaid is alleged to have been made would not have been entitled to the immunity conferred by subsections (1) and (3) above in relation to trades disputes in the event of his or their being charged with the relevant substantive offence under any of the said provisions.
        (5) Where in pursuance of any agreement the acts in question in relation to any of the offences referred to in subsection (1) and (3) above are to be done exclusively or primarily in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute with companies running telecommunications systems that offence or those offences are to be disregarded for the purpose of section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.'.
        Mr. Morris: I would be failing in my duty if I sought to minimise the crucial importance of these two amendments, concerned as they are with the right to strike by the staff of British Telecommunications. Given the enactment of the Bill, British Telecommunications at present is poised to enter the private sector with 235,000 employees who will be exposed to legal challenge if they resort to industrial action. That is the main issue posed in these two amendments. Unless the House is careful, it may be writing a recipe for industrial conflict if the Government refuse to accept the principles enshrined in these two amendments.
        The amendments seek solely and exclusively to remove the legal hazards confronting telecommunication workers who seek to exercise what is generally regarded as a basic right enjoyed by virtually every other group of organized
        224
        workers in Britain today—the rights to strike, withdraw labour, and participate in forms of industrial action that represent less than a complete withdrawal of labour.
        British Telecommunications workers claim — and I believe it—that they are among the most reasonable and responsible trade unionists. Throughout the history of the Post Office, when it was the British telephone system, and during the era of British Telecommunications as a public corporation, BT workers have been proud of their traditions of co-operating with their employers in the interests of the community and in the interests of providing one of the most efficient telecomunications systems in the world. These workers have a right and an entitlement to strike without incurring the risk of legal challenge.
        I am delighted that the Solicitor-General is sitting next to the Minister of State. I trust that that comfortable and close proximity will induce in the Minister of State a slightly different response from that which he exhibited when a similar amendment was discussed in Committee.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) encapsulated what the Opposition are seeking in these two amendments when he coined the phrase that the Opposition are not seeking a charter for industrial action. The Opposition are seeking to ensure that British Telecommunication workers have the same rights as are enjoyed by other groups of organised workers.
        For the benefit of the House I shall explain the legal background to the amendments that I am moving. Before 1976, telecommunications workers always assumed that they had the right to take industrial action. Indeed, they exercised that right during a one-day strike in 1964 and again during the seven-week strike in 1971. They even took action against France in 1973 by banning operator calls for one week in protest against French nuclear tests in the Pacific. There were no legal repercussions on any of those occasions. I concede that fact at the outset.
        Until the Grunwick dispute no doubts about the legality of telecommunications workers' action in withdrawing their labour were expressed. However, in November 1976, when communications workers boycotted mail to Grunwick, doubt arose about whether Post Office and telecommunications workers could legally withdraw their labour. The issue was not put to the legal test until January 1977 when the National Association for Freedom asked the then Attorney-General to institute a legal injunction against the Union of Communication Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union about plans to boycott telecommunications and post to South Africa.
        The Attorney-General at the time refused to grant the injunction but the National Association for Freedom obtained the support of the Appeal Court, presided over by Lord Denning. The court decided that the unions were violating the Telegraph Act and issued the injunction that had been sought.
        Lord Denning stated that it was clearly an offence to "wilfully" delay or interfere with telephone calls or procure others to do so. The House of Lords decided in July 1977 that the Appeal Court had acted wrongly in granting the injunction but the Law Lords endorsed Lord Denning's view that it was a criminal offence to black telephone calls. The union's victory in the House of Lords only shielded telecommunications workers from being the target of civil injunctions—I want to emphasise that. They remained, and remain today, vulnerable to criminal

        225
        prosecution if they withdrew their labour. It is that simple fact that communication workers, generally, find intolerable. Lord Diplock said, that in his view, that
        "such conduct … would constitute a criminal offence".
        He was referring, of course, to the action of blacking particular telephone calls and blacking certain mail.
        Lord Diplock went on to say that, in his view,
        "such conduct … would constitute a criminal offence punishable upon indictment by imprisonment or a fine is plainly beyond argument."
        At that time, Lord Diplock was saying that the legal case was beyond argument. The relevant clause that produces this legal anomaly is section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863, which states that it will be an offence:
        "If any Person in the Employment of the Company—wilfully or negligently omits or delays to transmit or deliver any Message; Or by any wilful or negligent Act or Omission prevents or delays the Transmission or Delivery of any Message."
        From that quotation it is quite clear that it is an offence to interfere with telecommunications but it is equally clear that section 45 was directed primarily at what might be termed "criminal" rather than "trade union" disruption. Only by the judicial extension of the law, which took place in 1976–77, were workers challenged on taking industrial action.
        At the conclusion of the first day's hearing by the Court of Appeal of the South African action taken by communications workers in respect of South Africa in 1977, to which I have referred, Lord Denning set out section 45 of the Telegraph Act, 1863 and noted that anyone who solicits or procures the prevention or delay of any telegraphic message is guilty at common law as an aider and abetter.
        Having commented on the specific provisions he concluded his observations on the statutory position by observing:
        "Many statutes are not at all clear but those"—
        he was referring to section 45—
        "are clear beyond doubt."
        That was Lord Denning saying clearly and specifically that according to his interpretation of the law, section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863 was "clear beyond doubt".
        Lord Justice Lawton regarded the legal position as plain, and Lord Justice Ormrod said:
        "we are dealing in this case with the plainest breach of the criminal law which it is possible to imagine and equally clearly with explicit threatened future breaches."
        As the House will recall, the case later came back for a further hearing before the same court. After a full hearing, which lasted several days, Lord Denning refuted the suggestion that the statutory provisions were outdated and should be regarded differently in a modern industrial context. He said:
        "Those enactments are so clear that I see no reason for anyone to require the position to be tested in the courts. If the trade union, or its officers, asked for the advice of any lawyer, the answer must have been: You cannot do it. It is contrary to the law."
        6.30 pm
        In general terms, those interpretations were again endorsed by the House of Lords judgment in July 1977. As a result, the status of telecommunications workers, like that of Post Office workers, is unique and, I believe, a legal anomaly in comparison with workers in other service industries. Section 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 shows that gas and water workers were
        226
        on the same footing as telecommunications workers in that they were guilty of a criminal offence if they acted wilfully to deprive people of their gas and water supplies.
        Mr. Barry Henderson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could clarify the situation. When he talks of an industrial dispute, is he thinking of a dispute between employees and a telecommunications operator in general, or BT in particular, or is he thinking more widely and of disputes in which the employees take action in furtherance of someone else's industrial dispute?
        Mr. Morris: I am seeking to establish that telecommunications workers should generally enjoy the same right as any other group of organised trade unionists in this country to indulge in industrial action, in keeping with the rules of their trade unions. Telecommunications workers should be treated no differently from any other group of workers in seeking to exercise their right to strike and to take industrial action.
        I wanted to draw a comparison between telecommunications, water and gas workers. I have already pointed out the contents of section 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. Section 31 of the Electricity Supply Act 1919 imposed the same condition on electricity workers. However, all the conditions affecting water, gas and electricity workers were repealed under schedule 9 to the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Therefore, water, gas and electricity supply workers are not treated in this way. For some illogical reason that I have been unable to discover from ministerial responses, telecommunications workers are treated differently.
        The two amendments seek to discover why telecommunications workers should be singled out in this way. What possible justification can there be for imposing different conditions on telecommunications and Post Office workers? The peculiarity of the status of telecommunications workers was acknowledged by official Conservative spokesmen for industry when the Conservative party was in opposition. When the present Minister of State, Department of Industry, then the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) spoke for the Conservative Opposition, he said that he supported a restricted right of industrial action against employers for Post Office and telecommunications workers. On 17 February 1978, he said:
        "We recognise that Post Office workers feel that they are in a unique position. They feel that whilst others such as the electricity workers, have the right … the Post Office workers are in an anomalous position, and I should find it difficult to argue that Post Office workers are more like policemen than like power workers."—[Official Report, 17 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 886.]
        If the hon. Gentleman said that in opposition, how can a refusal to take action when in government be justified? In June 1978, the then Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) said unequivocally:
        "we believe that it is proper for postal workers to have the right to strike against their employer."—[Official Report; June 1978, Standing Committee C; 21 June 1978, c. 8.]
        Why say something in opposition that one is not prepared to stand by when in government? The Minister must answer that point when he replies.
        Postal and telecommunications workers should have the right to strike against their employers. The question is whether telecommunications workers can legally take industrial action when engaged in a trade dispute with their

        227
        employers. It can, and no doubt will, be argued that Lord Denning's judgment in 1977 suggested that industrial action against the employer by telecommunications workers might not fall foul of the law. Lord Denning was far from categoric in his interpretation. As the House will recall, in 1971 there was a seven-week strike of Post Office workers, who, at the time, included telecommunications workers. Lord Denning said:
        "In 1971 there was a strike in which the postal workers stopped work for several weeks. I would not be prepared to assert that this was a breach of the criminal law. It could be said that, by stopping work, they did not wilfully detain or delay the mail. It was, moreover, a trade dispute for which the union was not liable in the Civil Courts. Howsoever that may be, no action was taken in the Courts at that time to test the legality of the action."
        That is the position that we are in. Telecommunications workers who wish to participate in industrial action remain open to a possible legal challenge. The two amendments seek to remove that possibility.
        During consideration of the British Telecommunications Bill 1981, the Government—and certainly the present Minister of State—appeared to argue that Lord Denning's somewhat tentative view should allay the anxiety of telecommunications workers, and that specifically expressed by the Union of Communication Workers and the POEU. On 30 January 1981, in reply to those anxieties, the present Minister of State wrote to the general secretary of the Union of Communication Workers as follows:
        "There appears to be a clear distinction between delay or misconduct in handling mail or telecommunications on the one hand and a strike involving withdrawal of labour on the other. Whilst some kinds of industrial action short of the complete withdrawal of labour could constitute offences, particularly where the action involved breach of the employee's contractual obligations to his employer, a strike involving the withdrawal of labour should not amount to a criminal offence. Neither the decision of the Court of Appeal nor the House of Lords in the Gouriet case, to which you refer, suggests a contrary view. In fact, Lord Denning's judgment points clearly to the view that the right to strike is unaffected. The law, therefore, seems to be as you wish it to be."
        If that is the considered view of the Minister of State let him make the law crystal clear and remove the threat that exists that telecommunications workers are open to legal challenge if they resort to industrial action. I remind the Minister of State that there is widespread interest among telecommunications workers generally in this legal point and I hope that he will give the considered view of the Government for refusing to take action to remove this legal anomaly.
        Mr. Tom Ellis: I rise mainly to ease the mind of the Minister of State, who gets terribly worried about what the Alliance will do—whether it will support the Government or the official Opposition—and does not seem to appreciate that very frequently sensible people might support neither. I can put him out of his misery tonight by saying that we shall be supporting this amendment. Although there are some technical weaknesses in it, the spirit of the amendment is so overwhelming and obvious that we shall be very happy to support it.
        For all sorts of reasons—which, in order to be brief, I will not go into now—if the Bill were not moving the state away from the industry, making private companies, there would be much more argument for refusing the right to strike since the people would be employed by the state. There are now to be private companies and denying the people employed in them the right to strike seems to be
        228
        completely contrary to all our traditions and to the fundamental principles referred to by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris).
        There is one point on which we feel that in a technical sense the amendment cannot be supported. It applies to subsection (1)(a) and (b). Where it applies to (b)—that is, by providing that people on strike should be allowed intentionally to modify or interfere with the contents of a message—we cannot support it because that would be equivalent to somebody on strike in manufacturing industry being able to go round with a sledghanuner smashing the machinery. That is a technicality, however. We wholeheartedly support the spirit of the amendment and will be trooping into the lobby in our great strength against the Government.
        6.45 pm
        Mr. Stan Thorne: It is not my intention to speak at length so my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) need not look quite so worried. I wish to say only a few words because we debated this matter extensively in the Committee and it was quite clear then, as it is now. I do not want to assume what the Minister of State or the Solicitor-General will say on this subject, although I think it is fairly clear what that is likely to be.
        It is interesting that spokesmen for this Government have on many occasions alluded to police states and the deprivation of civil rights in several countries—and this at a time when they are implementing legislation that deprives workers in a particular industry of the elementary right to strike. I do not think it is going too far to equate that with the concept of slavery. If workers in this industry cannot respond to difficulties over their working conditions, their pay or anything else that directly affects them because they would be breaking the law, that, it seems to me, is little different from the concept that we have heard described many times by Government Members of a police state.
        There are certain other indications, but if I dealt with them now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order. The indications are plain. The authoritarian government we have seen over the last four years grows in significance through the activities of people such as the Secretary of State for Employment and others. I forecast that if we were unfortunate enough to be faced in a few years with yet another Conservative Government there would be even further erosion of civil liberties.
        I hope that all Opposition Members will find it absolutely imperative to vote in favour of ensuring that in future British telecomunications workers have the elementary right to withdraw their labour in certain circumstances.
        Mr. Golding: My message from the members of the POEU is that the Solicitor-General is saying that one may strike but one must not take other industrial action. If a man is on scheduled overtime—say four hours' overtime—he may strike for 12 hours, but he may not work for eight hours and strike for four hours. He may strike, but he may not work to rule if that is impeding the business in ways which cannot be justified. That is the daftness of the legislation. That is the situation that the Solicitor-General and the Government are tryin,g to defend.
        I want to say a few words about the dispute with Mercury, because the Minister of State has referred to that. The POEU wishes it to be known that

        229
        "Mercury, on its own admission, is not going to provide any new service. It will dilute British Telecom's future profitability by competing on the most lucrative business routes currently available. Mercury is, therefore, an unnecessary duplication and waste of national resources.
        "Although we [the POEU] remain firmly of the view that it will not be for the benefit of the community as a whole, competition is an established fact. We believe that British Telecom will compete and be effective against its rivals.
        "However, we object to the fact that British Telecom is being forced to give up its own telecommunications network for use by these rivals. This is the purpose of our industrial action against connecting Mercury to British Telecom's network.
        "Mercury was created to establish an independent alternative network to British Telecom. Although we do not support this, we acknowledge the fact that it is going to happen. However, we do not intend to see Mercury exploiting the network which British Telecom has created over very many years, and which is based upon the work of our members, in order to do this, especially as this exploitation will reduce British Telecom's business and hence the job opportunities for these members. No respectable business should be forced to hand over the use of its assets in this way, British Telecom included."
        That is the message that the POEU wishes to give the Government and the Solicitor-General. We believe that it is absolutely right to be able to use industrial action to safeguard jobs and conditions of service.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall have to consider carefully what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has just said about the position that the Post Office Engineering Union has taken over connecting to the British Telecom network. The British Telecom network is not owned by the Post Office Engineering Union; it is a national asset and agreements exist for British Telecom to provide for interconnection. As I said yesterday at the Dispatch Box—and it was reported—we would expect British Telecom to honour those agreements.
        I reiterate that it is extraordinary that the Post Office Engineering Union should have that attitude and at the same time ask that it should be given the exclusive privilege to lay cable television networks in Britain. Can it not see that any prospective partners for which BT is looking, and hence the Post Office Engineering Union, will be looking carefully at the decisions that the POEU will be making over the next few days and weeks? If they are in danger of having the plug pulled upon them as regards interconnect, what assurance can possible consortium partners have in association with BT in cable provision? I hope that it will be taken into account by the POEU.
        As the House knows, this issue was debated two years ago during proceedings on the British Telecommunications Act 1981, and recently in Committee. I should like first to consider the extent of employees' liability under the provisions to see whether the new subsections are necessary. Immunity for employees involved in trade disputes was dealt with when similar provisions were discussed in Committee on the 1981 Act as well as in Committee on this Bill. The statement made by the Attorney-General in Committee in 1981 said that the offences would not apply in cases where there was a withdrawal of labour but left the presumption that a successful prosecution could result where industrial action short of a full withdrawal of labour occurred. I do not think that there is any dispute about that interpretation.
        The Attorney-General's advice in 1981 was that section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863, and certain provisions in the
        230
        Post Office Act 1953, were all directed at dereliction of duty involving one or more messages or postal packets and that a complete withdrawal of labour could not have those characteristics. It followed that in his opinion it was inconceivable that a prosecution in respect of the offences in question would succeed in the event of a strike that involved a complete withdrawal of labour. I emphasise that point in view of the strong speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne).
        The Attorney-General went on to consider whether industrial action short of a complete withdrawal of labour would be caught by the provisions but he was unable to give firm guidance. His conclusions were, first, that a refusal to undertake voluntary overtime could not lead to proceedings because the essence of voluntary work is that one can chose whether or not to partake in it.
        However, if overtime was part of an agreed rota system defined in any contract of employment, refusal to work the extra hours might well be construed a wilful breach of duty and as such come under the provision of the enactments. The second point was that working to rule would not be a negligent or wilful act if it involved genuinely applying agreed rules and so could not be the subject of a successful prosecution under the provisions. Thirdly, he made the point that discriminatory action against one or more persons—for example, by refusing to provide service to him or them—could justify prosecution under the offences as it could be deemed a wilful refusal to undertake the transmission of a message contrary to duty.
        I stress that the Attorney-General's comments were directed to criminal proceedings arising out of section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863 and certain provisions of the Post Office Act 1953. But it can readily be seen that Post Office employees can do a great deal in connection with a trade dispute without incurring criminal liability.
        The offences in clause 39 are updated versions of the offences in section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863, as the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) reminded us in his opening speech. There seems no reason why the opinion of the Attorney-General on the operation of those offences in relation to industrial action should not equally apply to the offences under clause 39.
        Let us consider what the Solicitor-General said to members of the Standing Committee on the same issue in respect of clause 39. He emphasised three points about the offence. He said, first, that because it creates a criminal offence it will always be interpreted in favour of the liberty of the subject; secondly, that intention is the essential ingredient; and, thirdly, that the offence is one that is committed by individuals so that the individual charged has to have done the act of preventing or delaying transmission with the intention of preventing and delaying before he can be convicted.
        The Solicitor-General confirmed that no offence under clause 39 of preventing, delaying or interrupting the transmission or reception of a message would be committed if the interruption was the result of a complete withdrawal of labour. However, the Solicitor-General said that there was a risk that action short of a strike that was discriminatory or selective, especially perhaps if secondary, would amount to a criminal offence under clause 39. As examples of discriminatory or selective action, the Solicitor-General instanced the intentional blacking of a certain message or messages or a class or

        231
        classes of message. The Solicitor-General found it hard to see how refusing to do overtime would constitute an offence if there was no obligation under contract to do any.
        On working to rule, the Solicitor-General noted that whether an offence would be committed depended on whether the work to rule was genuine. If an employee said that he would do everything that he was under contract to do and no more, that would be an end of the matter. But if working to rule was a means of bringing work to a halt the position might be different.
        The Bill is not intended as a vehicle to amend industrial relations or employment law and for that reason clause 39 does little more than update the wording of the offences in section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863. I stress that the Bill does not take away the right of an employee of a public telecommunications operator to strike—not just BT but all public telecommunications operators. The effect of clause 39 is simply to extend to all public telecommunications operators certain safeguards against the interruption and delay of telecommunications, for which safeguards have existed since 1863. Those safeguards have not resulted in any prosecution arising out of industrial action, nor, so far as I know, have they inhibited the withdrawal of labour. I must oppose the amendments and I hope that they will be rejected by the House.
        Question put, that the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 288.

        Division No. 106]

        [6.57 pm

        AYES

        Abse, Leo

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Allaun, Frank

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

        Alton, David

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Anderson, Donald

        Davidson, Arthur

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

        Ashton, Joe

        Deakins, Eric

        Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Bagier, Gordon A.T.

        Dewar, Donald

        Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

        Dixon, Donald

        Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

        Dobson, Frank

        Beith, A. J.

        Dormand, Jack

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Douglas, Dick

        Bennett, Andrew (St'Kp't N)

        Dubs, Alfred

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Booth, Rt Hon Albert

        Dunnett, Jack

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

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

        Eadie, Alex

        Bradley, Tom

        Eastham, Ken

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Ellis, R. (NE D'byshre)

        Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

        Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        English, Michael

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

        Evans, loan (Aberdare)

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

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

        FauIds, Andrew

        Buchan, Norman

        Field, Frank

        Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

        Ford, Ben

        Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

        Forrester, John

        Campbell, Ian

        Foster, Derek

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Foulkes, George

        Canavan, Dennis

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

        Cant, R. B.

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        Carter-Jones, Lewis

        Garrett, John (Norwich S)

        Cartwright, John

        Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        George, Bruce

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

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

        Ginsburg, David

        Coleman, Donald

        Golding, John

        Conlan, Bernard

        Gourlay, Harry

        Cook, Robin F,

        Graham, Ted

        Cowans, Harry

        Grant, John (Islington C)

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

        Grimond, Rt Hon J.

        Crawshaw, Richard

        Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

        Crowther, Stan

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

        Cryer, Bob

        Hardy, Peter

        232

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Penhaligon, David

        Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

        Pitt, William Henry

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Haynes, Frank

        Prescott, John

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Price, C. (Lewisham W)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Race, Reg

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

        Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

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

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Home Robertson, John

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

        Homewood, William

        Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

        Hooley, Frank

        Rodgers, Rt Hon William

        Horam, John

        Rooker, J. W.

        Howells, Geraint

        Roper, John

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

        Huckfield, Les

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Hughes, Mark (Durham)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Ryman, John

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Sandelson, Neville

        Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

        Sever, John

        Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

        Sheerman, Barry

        John, Brynmor

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Johnson, James (Hull West)

        Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

        Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

        Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)

        Jones, Barry (East Flint)

        Silverman, Julius

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Skinner, Dennis

        Kilfedder, James A.

        Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

        Lamond, James

        Snape, Peter

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Soley, Clive

        Leighton, Ronald

        Spearing, Nigel

        Lestor, Miss Joan

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Litherland, Robert

        Stallard, A. W.

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Lyon, Alexander (York)

        Stoddart, David

        Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

        Stott, Roger

        Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

        Strang, Gavin

        McCartney, Hugh

        Straw, Jack

        McElhone, Mrs Helen

        Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

        McGuire, Michael (Ince)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        McKelvey, William

        Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

        MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

        Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Thomas, Dr H.(Carmarthen)

        McTaggart, Robert

        Thome, Stan (Preston South)

        McWilliam, John

        Tinn, James

        Magee, Bryan

        Torney, Tom

        Marks, Kenneth

        Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

        Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

        Wainwright, B.(Dearne V)

        Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goolo)

        Wainwright, H. (Colne V)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Wardell, Gareth

        Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

        Weetch, Ken

        Mason, Rt Hon Roy

        Wellbeloved, James

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Welsh, Michael

        Meacher, Michael

        White, Frank R.

        Mikardo, Ian

        White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Whitehead, Phillip

        Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

        Whitlock, William

        Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

        Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

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

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)

        Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

        Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

        Newens, Stanley

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

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Wilson, William (C'try SE)

        O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

        Winnick, David

        O'Halloran, Michael

        Woodall, Alec

        O'Neill, Martin

        Woolmer, Kenneth

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Wrigglesworth, Ian

        Palmer, Arthur

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Park, George

        Parker, John

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Parry, Robert

        Mr. George Morton and

        Pavitt, Laurie

        Mr. Allen McKay.

        Pendry, Tom

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Arnold, Tom

        Alexander, Richard

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

        Ancram, Michael

        Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

        233

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Banks, Robert

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Bendall, Vivian

        Goodhew, Sir Victor

        Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

        Gorst, John

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Gow, Ian

        Best, Keith

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Grant, Sir Anthony

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Greenway, Harry

        Blackburn, John

        Grieve, Percy

        Blaker, Peter

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

        Body, Richard

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Grist, Ian

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Grylls, Michael

        Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Bowden, Andrew

        Hamilton, Hon A.

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Bright, Graham

        Hannam, John

        Brinton, Tim

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Brotherton, Michael

        Hawksley, Warren

        Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Henderson, Barry

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Hicks, Robert

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Buck, Antony

        Hill, James

        Budgen, Nick

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Burden, Sir Frederick

        Holland, Philip (Carlton)

        Butcher, John

        Hooson, Tom

        Carlisle, John (Luton West)

        Hordern, Peter

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

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

        Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Churchill, W. S.

        Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

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

        Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Jessel, Toby

        Clegg, Sir Walter

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Cockeram, Eric

        Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

        Colvin, Michael

        Kaberry, Sir Donald

        Cormack, Patrick

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Corrie, John

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

        Crouch, David

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        Knox, David

        Dover, Denshore

        Lang, Ian

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Langford-Holt, Sir John

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        Latham, Michael

        Durant, Tony

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Dykes, Hugh

        Lee, John

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

        Le Merchant, Spencer

        Eggar, Tim

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Eyre, Reginald

        Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

        Loveridge, John

        Faith, Mrs Sheila

        Luce, Richard

        Farr, John

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Fell, Sir Anthony

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Fenner, Mrs Peggy

        MacGregor, John

        Finsberg, Geoffrey

        MacKay, John (Argyll)

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

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

        McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

        Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

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

        Forman, Nigel

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

        Madel, David

        Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

        Major, John

        Fry, Peter

        Marland, Paul

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Marlow, Antony

        Gardner, Sir Edward

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Marten, Rt Hon Neil

        234

        Mates, Michael

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Mawby, Ray

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Shepherd, Richard

        Mayhew, Patrick

        Silvester, Fred

        Mellor, David

        Sims, Roger

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Speed, Keith

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Speller, Tony

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Spence, John

        Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

        Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

        Moate, Roger

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Sproat, Iain

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Squire, Robin

        Moore, John

        Stainton, Keith

        Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Stanley, John

        Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

        Steen, Anthony

        Mudd, David

        Stevens, Martin

        Murphy, Christopher

        Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)

        Myles, David

        Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Stokes, John

        Needham, Richard

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Nelson, Anthony

        Tapsell, Peter

        Neubert, Michael

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Newton, Tony

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Normanton, Tom

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Onslow, Cranley

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Thompson, Donald

        Osborn, John

        Thorne, Neil (Word South)

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Vaughan, Dr Gerard

        Pawsey, James

        Viggers, Peter

        Percival, Sir Ian

        Waddington, David

        Peyton, Rt Hon John

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

        Pollock, Alexander

        Walker, B. (Perth)

        Porter, Barry

        Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Wall, Sir Patrick

        Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

        Waller, Gary

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Walters, Dennis

        Pym, Rt Hon Francis

        Ward, John

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Watson, John

        Rathbone, Tim

        Wells, Bowen

        Renton, Tim

        Wells, John (Maidstone)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Wheeler, John

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Whitney, Raymond

        Ridley, Hon Nicholas

        Wickenden, Keith

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Williams, D.(Montgomery)

        Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Wolfson, Mark

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Rossi, Hugh

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Rost, Peter

        Royle, Sir Anthony

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Mr. Carol Mather and

        St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

        Mr. John Cope.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being after Seven 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 Seven o'clock.

      Clause 44
        INTERPRETATION OF PART II
        Amendment made: No. 41, in page 37, leave out lines 41 to 43.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
      Clause 45
        GENERAL FUNCTIONS
        Amendment made: No. 42, in page 38, line 15, leave out 'commercial'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
      Clause 46
        PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION AND ADVICE
        Amendment made: No. 43, in page 38, line 30, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 31.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
      Clause 47

        INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
        Amendments made:
        No. 44, in page 39, line 26, at end insert 'and'.
        No. 113, in page 39, line 29, after 'by' insert
        'a body recognised by the Secretary of State under section (Recognition of bodies representing consumers etc.) above or by'.
        No. 45, in page 39, line 30, at end insert—
        '(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any matter which relates to—

        (a)the transmission by a broadcasting authority, by wireless telegraphy, of sounds, visual images or such signals as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of section 4(1) above from a transmitting station for general reception direct from that station; or

        (b)the reception of sounds, visual images or such signals transmitted, by wireless telegraphy, from a transmitting station for general reception direct from that station.'

        No. 46, in page 39, line 34, at end insert—
        '2(A) In this section "broadcasting authority" means a person licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to broadcast programmes for general reception and "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in that Act.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Clause 48

        POWER TO ESTABLISH ADVISORY BODIES, ETC.
        Amendments made: No. 114, in page 40, line 6, at end insert—
        '(3A) Each of the advisory bodies established under subsection (2) above shall, as soon as practicable after the end of the year 1984 and of each subsequent calendar year, make to the Director a report on its activities during that year.'
        No. 115, in page 40, leave out lines 10 to 19.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Clause 51

        POWERS TO REQUIRE INFORMATION ETC.
        Amendment made: No. 47, in page 42, line 18, after 'functions', insert
        '(other than his functions under sections 45(1) and 46(1) above)'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Clause 52

        ANNUAL AND OTHER REPORTS
        Amendments made: No. 116, in page 43, line 31, after 'include', insert ' (a)'.
        Page 43, line 33 at end insert
        'and
        (b) the reports which the advisory bodies established under section 48(2) above make to him on their activities during that year.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Clause 56

        CONVERSION OF CERTAIN LOANS TRANSFERRED TO THE SUCCESSOR COMPANY
        Amendments made: No. 52, in
        page 46, line 30 at end insert
        'such debentures of the company as the Secretary of State may direct'
        No. 53, in page 46, line 33 leave out 'in question".
        No. 54, in page 46 leave out lines 35 and 36.
        No 55, in page 47, line 8 leave out from 'loan' to end of line 9 and insert
        'shall be disregarded in so far as they relate to the early discharge of liabilities to make repayments of principal and payments of interest'.
        No. 118, in page 47, line 12, at end insert—
        '(6A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the principal sums payable under debentures issued in pursuance of this section are to be regarded as money lent for the purposes of subsection (10) of section 48 of the Finance Act 1981 (write-off of government investment: restriction of tax losses).'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Clause 60

        FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE SUCCESSOR COMPANY
        Amendments, made: No 58, in page 50, line 3 after 'last', insert 'complete'.
        page 50, line 30 at end insert
        'and the reference in subsection (4) above to the last complete accounting year of British Telecommonications ending before the transfer date is a reference to the accounting year of British Telecommunications ending with the 31st. March immediately preceding that date.'.—[Mr. David Hunt]

      Clause 63

        DISSOLUTION OF BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.
        Amendments made: No. 60, in page 51, line 33 leave out 'the following provisions of this section' and insert
        'subsection (2) below'.
        No. 61, in page 51, line 38 leave out
        'and schedule 1 to the 1981 Act'
        and insert
        'the 1981 Act and Schedule 1 to that Act (except paragraph 5 thereof)'.
        No. 62, in page 51, line 41 leave out from 'below' to end of line 43.
        No. 63, in page 52 leave out lines 1 to 37.
        No. 64, in page 52, line 43 leave out 'subsection (3) above or'.
        No. 65, in page 53 leave out lines 1 to 9.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Clause 65

        TAX PROVISIONS
        Amendment made: No. 121, in page 54, line 14 at end insert—
        '(3A) The vesting in the successor company by virtue of section 54 above of liability for any loan made to British Telecommunications shall not affect any direction in respect of the loan which has been given by the Treasury under section 416 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (income tax exemption for interest on foreign currency securities).'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Clause 66

        POWERS OF MANAGERS OF CERTAIN WELFARE FUNDS TO
        preserve their scope
        Amendment made: No. 66, in page 54, line 27, leave out clause 66.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Schedule 2

        THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CODE
        Amendments made: No. 67, in page 74, line 3 at end insert—
        '(2A) In relation to any land which, otherwise than in connection with a street on that land, is divided horizontally into different parcels, the references in this code to a place over or under the land shall have effect in relation to each parcel as not including references to any place in a different parcel.'.
        No. 68, in page 75, line 14 at end insert—
        '(5A) It is hereby declared that a right falling within subparagraph (1) above is not subject to the provisions of any enactment requiring the registration of interests in, charges on or other obligations affecting land.'.
        No. 69, in page 76 leave out line 3 and insert—
        'person—

        (i) who is infeft proprietor of the land; or

        (ii) who has right to the land but whose title thereto is not complete; or

        (iii) in the case of land subject to a heritable security constituted by exfacie absolute disposition, who is the debtor in the security, except where the creditor is in possession of the land,

        other than a person having a right as a superior only.'.
        No. 70, in page 79 leave out lines 44 to 49 and insert—
        '(4) The rights conferred by this paragraph shall not be exercisable on any land comprised in the route of a special road (within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980, the Special Roads Act 1949 or the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1980).'.
        No. 73, in page 85, line 35 at end insert
        `or any other authority which discharges functions of that authority in relation to that sewer and is authorised by the authority in which the sewer is vested to act on its behalf for the purposes of this paragraph.'.
        No. 107, in page 90, line 5 after 'under', insert 'the preceding provisions of'.
        No. 108, in page 90, line 6 leave out from second 'with' to 'order' in line 7 and insert 'an'.
        No. 109, in page 90, line 9, leave out
        'gave the notice or, as the case may be,'.
        No. 110, in page 91, line 45, leave out from 'directs' to 'shall' in line 47 and insert
        `on an application under the preceding provisions of this paragraph, any expenses incurred by the operator in or in connection with the making of any alteration in compliance with an order under this paragraph'.
        No. 111, in page 91, leave out line 49 and insert
        'applied for the order'.
        No. 74, in page 96, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'authorise' in line 12 and insert—
        238
        `25.—(1) Except in so far as provision is otherwise made by virtue of section 87(2) of or Schedule 4 to this Act, this code shall not'.
        No. 75, in page 96, line 32, after 'given', insert
        '(or deemed to have been given)'.
        No. 76, in page 96, line 41, after 'gave', insert
        `(or is deemed to have given)'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Schedule 4

        MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        Amendments made: No. 77, in page 111, line 15, leave out
        'and of paragraph 8(4) of the telecommunications code (applications of enactments, including section 4 of this Act)'.
        No. 78, in page 141, line 22, at end insert—
        'The Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
        71A. In section 28(1) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (interpretation etc.), in the definition of "overriding interest", after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
        "(ee) the operator having a right conferred in accordance with paragraph 2, 3 or 4 of Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1983 (agreements for execution of works, obstruction of access, etc.);".'.
        No. 79, in page, 145, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'operation' in line 25.
        No. 80, in page 154, leave out line 14.
        No. 81, in page 154, leave out lines 16 and 17.
        No. 82, in page 154, leave out line 23.
        No. 83, in page 154, leave out line 31.
        No. 84, in page 154, leave out line 40.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Schedule 5

        GENERAL TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
        Amendments made: No. 85, in page 157, leave out lines 9 to 21.
        No. 86, in page 157, line 33, at end insert—
        '(2A) Any fee charged in respect of an approval which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above, is to have effect as if issued under section 19(1) or (4) of this Act shall be deemed to have been validly charged.
        (2B) Where immediately before the appointed day British Telecommunications has in its possession copies of approvals issued by it under section 16(2) of the 1981 Act, British Telecommunications shall, as soon as practicable after that day, send those copies to the Secretary of State.
        (2C) Neither section 19(10) nor section 21(2) of this Act shall apply in relation to an approval issued by British Telecommunications under section 16(2) of the 1981 Act unless a copy of that approval is sent to the Secretary of State under subparagraph (2B) above.'.
        No. 87, in page 157, line 41 at end insert—
        '(3A) An acknowledgement by the Secretary of State or a person appointed for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 16 of the 1981 Act that any apparatus conforms to a standard approved under subsection (1) of that section shall be treated for the purposes of this paragraph as an approval issued under the said subsection (2).'.
        No. 88, in page 157, line 49 at end insert—
        '3A.—(1) An order made, or having effect as if made, by the Secretary of State under section 37 of the 1981 Act which is effective on the appointed day shall have effect, as from that day, as if made by the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland under section 27 of this Act.
        (2) An order made, or having effect as if made, under section 27 of this Act which applies in relation to hereditaments occupied by British Telecommunications and is effective on the transfer date shall have effect, as from that date, as if it applied in relation to the corresponding hereditaments occupied by the successor company.

        239
        3B.—(1) A compulsory purchase order made under section 38 or 39 of the 1981 Act which is effective on the appointed day shall have effect, as from that day, as if made with the consent of the Director, under section 28 or 29 of this Act; and the provisions of the said section 28 or 29 shall apply accordingly.
        (2) A compulsory purchase order made, or having effect as if made, by British Telecommunications under section 28 or 29 of this Act which is effective on the transfer date shall have effect, as from that date, as if made by the successor company.
        3C.—(1) An application for a vesting order made under section 40 of the 1981 Act which is effective on the appointed day shall have effect, as from that day, as if made with the consent of the Director under section 30 of this Act; and the provisions of the said section 30 shall apply accordingly.
        (2) An application for a vesting order made, or having effect as if made, by British Telecommunications under section 30 of this act which is effective on the transfer date shall have effect, as from that date, as if made by the successor company.
        3D.—(1) An authorisation given by British Telecommunications under section 41, 42 or 43 of the 1981 Act which is effective on the appointed day shall have effect, as from that day, as if given by the Secretary of State under section 31, 32 or 33 of this Act on the nomination of British Telecommunications; and the provisions of the said section 31, 32 or 33 shall apply accordingly.
        (2) An authorisation given, or having effect as if given, by the Secretary of State under section 31, 32 or 33 of this Act on the nomination of British Telecommunications which is effective on the transfer date shall have effect, as from that date, as if given on the nomination of the successor company.'.
        No. 89, in page 158, line 35, after 'are', insert `(a).
        No. 90, in page 158, line 35, after 'persons', insert
        'or (b) supplying any apparatus to any persons'.
        No. 91, in page 158, line 38, leave out 'those services' and insert
        `the services or the hire of the apparatus'.
        No. 92, in page 159, line 1, after '(1)', insert (a)'.
        No. 159, line 13, leave out (b).
        No. 94, in page 159, line 21, at end insert—
        `10A. Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of section 35(2) of the 1981 Act in relation to any order under section 19 of the Local Government Act 1974 which applies in relation to heriditaments occupied by British Telecommunications and is effective on the appointed day.'
        No. 95, in page 160, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert—
        '14.—(1) It shall be the duty of British Telecommunications and of the successor company to take, as and when during the transitional period the successor company considers appropriate, all such steps as may be requisite to secure that the vesting in the successor company by virtue of section 54 of this Act of any foreign property, right or liability of British Telecommunications is effective under the relevant foreign law.
        (2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be taken as prejudicing the effect under the law of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom of the vesting in the successor company by virtue of section 54 of this Act of any property, right or liability of British Telecommunications (including any foreign property, right or liability).
        (3) British Telecommunications shall have all such powers as may be requisite for the performance of its duty under this paragraph but,—

        (a) it shall be the duty of the successor company during the transitional period to act on behalf of British Telecommunications (so far as possible) in performing the duty imposed on British Telecommunications by this paragraph; and

        (b) any rights and liabilities acquired or incurred by British Telecommunications during that period in the performance of that duty shall thereupon become rights and liabilities of the successor company.

        (4) References in this section to any foreign property, right or liability of British Telecommunications are references, respectively, to any property, right or liability of British Telecommunications as respects which any issue arising in any proceedings would have been determined (in accordance with the rules of private international law) by reference to the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
        240
        (5) In this paragraph and paragraphs 14A and 15 below "transitional period" means the period beginning with the transfer date and ending with the day on which British Telecommunications is dissolved in accordance with section 63(8) of this Act.
        (6) Any expenses incurred by British Telecommunications in performing its duty under this paragraph shall be met by the successor company.
        14A.—(1) It shall be the duty of British Telecommunications and of the successor company to take, as and when during the transitional period the successor company considers appropriate, all such steps as may be requisite to secure that anything which remains to be done under the provisions of sections 10 and 81(1) of and Schedule 2 to the 1981 Act is done.
        (2) British Telecommunications shall have all such powers as may be requisite for the performance of its duty under this paragraph, but—

        (a) it shall be the duty of the successor company during the transitional period to act on behalf of British Telecommunications ( so far as possible) in performing the duty imposed on British Telecommunications by this paragraph; and

        (b) any rights and liabilities acquired or incurred by British Telecommunications during that period in the performance of that duty shall thereupon become rights and liabilities of the successor company.

        (3) Any expenses incurred by British Telecommunications in performing its duty under this paragraph shall be met by the successor company.'.
        No. 96, in page 160, line 45, leave out from 'period' to 'in' in line 46.
        No. 97, in page 161, line 22, at end insert—
        '18A.—(1) For the purposes of authorising the making, in relation to employees of the successor company or any of its subsidiaries, of provision corresponding to that authorised to be made, in relation to employees of British Telecommunications or any of its subsidiaries, by section 84 of the 1981 Act, that section shall have effect as if—

        (a) any reference to the Post Office or to employees of, persons employed by or employment by the Post Office were a reference to British Telecommunications or to employees of, persons employed by or employment by British Telecommunications; and

        (b) any reference to a relevant body or to employees of, persons employed by or employment by a relevant body were a reference to the successor company or any subsidiary of the successor company or to employees of, persons employed by or employment by the successor company or any such subsidiary.

        (2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall he taken as prejudicing the operation of section 84 of the 1981 Act as originally enacted.
        18B. Where by virtue of anything done on or after the appointed day, but before the transfer date, any enactment amended by Schedule 4 to this Act has effect in relation to British Telecommunications then, as from that date, that enactment shall have effect in relation to the successor company as if that company were the same person, in law, as British Telecommunications.'.
        No. 98, in page 162, line 25, at end insert—
        '22. An order under section 19 of the Local Government Act 1974 (rating of certain public utilities and other bodies) which applies in relation to hereditaments occupied by British Telecommunications and is effective on the transfer date shall have effect, as from that date, as if it applied to the corresponding hereditaments occupied by the successor company.
        23. An order under section 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (valuation by formula of certain lands and heritages) which applies in relation to lands and heritages occupied by British Telecommunications and is effective on the transfer date shall have effect, as from that date, as if it applied in relation to the corresponding lands and heritages occupied by the successor company.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      Schedule 7

        REPEALS
        Amendments made: No. 99, in page 167, leave out lines 42 and 43.
        No. 100, in page 170, column 3, leave out line 33.
        No. 101, in page 170, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
        'In Schedule 1, paragraph 5.'
        No. 102, in page 171, line 10, column 3, at end insert—
        'Section 10.'.
        No. 103, in page 171, column 3, leave out line 11 and insert—
        'In Schedule 1, paragraphs 1 to 4 and 6 to 16. '—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Telecommunications Bill
Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales' Consent, signified.]
7.10 pm
Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to thank the various people who have been involved in the preparation of this immensely important Bill. I should like to thank the officials in my Department who have worked on it, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for helping me take the Bill through Committee, the Whips who helped us in Committee, and all my hon. Friends who served in Committee—at least, those who supported us.
I commend the Bill to the House, because it is the most important Bill that we are introducing in this Session. I believe that it will be seen by historians as probably the most important industrial Bill introduced during this Parliament's lifetime.
The Bill completes the revolution in telecommunications which was started in July 1980 by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Education and Science. The revolution was to liberate the British telecommunications market and to free it from British Telecom's monopoly control and exclusive privilege which it had operated and maintained for nearly 70 years. We embarked upon this policy because the era of exclusive privilege ended long ago in many things and there can be no justification for retaining it in telecommunications.
It is not fair to exclude market entry by other workers, unions and enterprises, all of whom are capible of exploiting the new technology to serve the community better. Those who want to retain British Telecom's monopoly must persuade the House and country that it is better that BT's exclusive privilege should be retained and the exclusive privilege of the Post Office Engineering Union, principally, and also the Union of Communication Workers should be retained so that they should be the only workers privileged to provide telecommunications services.
The arguments put forward by the Opposition are a defence of vested interests. A monopoly control of the market means a shut-out, and that shut-out has damaged the national interest. It has blocked innovation and growth by British apparatus and service providers. Great Britain had about 25 per cent. of the world's markets for telecommunications apparatus 25 years ago. We have now about 5 per cent. One must ask oneself how that came about and why we have declined. Part of the answer undoubtedly lies in the fact that we had a monopoly in the home market that did not stimulate and encourage British Telecom's suppliers to develop new products. Their range of products was limited. The state of technology was often ignored.
The third reason why we are ending the monopoly is that the new technology mircroelectronic revolution has made nonsense of the traditional institutional boundaries. Even Americans have made radical changes in the institutional framework to keep up with the opportunities created by the new technologies.
The second revolution is that we are liberating British Telecom from Government control. BT management and workers want BT to become the flagship of the information

243
technology era. To do so it must become market responsive and commercially astute. It must behave like a business. A monopoly is the greatest discouragement to acting like a business. British Telecom has not acted strongly commercially in many respects over the past few years. Since it has been subjected to competition over the past three years its service has improved. That will be the experience of every hon. Member. Waiting lists have been reduced from 120,000 to about 5,000 or 6,000 and trunk line costs have been cut over the past two years. I do not believe that trunk line costs to the ordinary consumer would have been cut if we had not issued a licence to Mercury. It was a great goad to competition for BT. BT has been aroused from its rather sleepy and dozy attitude.
The advantages of freeing BT from Government control and of liberalisation are plain. The customer is given a choice. We have liberalised a huge range of telephone equipment and telecommunications apparatus. Over 40 hand instruments have now been liberalised. The Bill ends the prime instrument monopoly. We have liberalised whole areas of activity, such as telex equipment. Later this year we shall liberalise private branch exchanges and small systems called key systems.
It has all led to an enormous amount of activity among telecommunications suppliers. We are being pressed by companies to liberalise more quickly and to allow equipment to be sold more easily because they are coming forward with their equipment, which is being designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom. It would not have happened if we had not pursued this policy since 1980.
By accepting the recommendations of Littlechild, we are saying that for the next five years the price of telephone rentals and calls to residential subscribers will not increase more than the rate of inflation.
There has been a considerable amount of scaremongering during the Bill's passage. Much of it has been designed to create anxieties. It was said that the Bill would result in services to rural areas ceasing immediately as Keats' nightingale would
"cease upon the midnight with no pain".
Rural services would he cut off because we were to liberalise and privatise BT. In Committee we showed that those anxieties are utterly unfounded.
For the first time in any statute we have placed an obligation upon the Secretary of State and the Director General of Oftel to take account of the needs of specific interests—the disabled, rural and remote areas, the provision of telephone kiosks and the emergency 999 services. That has not been part of legislation before. Under existing legislation, how and where it provided services was up to BT's judgment alone. We have placed obligations and duties upon the Secretary of State and the Director General which they are both obliged to fulfil.
We have said also that any place or people who have a telephone service now will continue to have one, provided, of course, that they pay for it. We have extended that to cover a whole range of telecommunications services. We have given clear reassurances that the network of telephone kiosks will be retained. That network is vital to many rural and remote areas. It is essential for some of the remoter areas of our country and also for towns and cities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) reminded us consistently in Committee. We have also said that the 999 emergency service will be continued as a free service.
244
There had been scaremongering about pensions until we gave clear assurances on Second Reading. We have repeated those assurances. I am glad to say that that scaremongering has now come to an end. There has been scaremongering about the number of jobs that might be lost in British Telecom. Telecommunications and information technology is a the most rapidly growing area of industrial activity in the world. In America, which is among the most liberalised and competitive markets, the numbers employed by "Ma Bell" and American Telephone and Telegraph, the big national network, have grown over the past few years, as have the numbers employed by their competitors and the American supply industry.
Consumer interests have been greatly enhanced by the Bill. Under present arrangements, the Post Office Users' National Council has frequently been described by Members of Parliament as a body without teeth. I think that it does a very good job. It handles tens of thousands of small complaints a year, but at the end of the day it does not have enforcement powers. It can take up complaints with BT and persuade it to try to deal with those complaints, but it does not have clout. Under the Bill the Director General of Oftel will have that clout. Oftel will have powers to examine complaints. If a complaint is founded, it will have powers to give directions for the abuse to be corrected. That is a substantial extension of consumer interests.
Hon. Members who served on the Committee will know that in Committee I agreed to set up a national advisory body for England. As one exists at the moment for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, my country should not be excluded. Again, that is an extension of consumer interests.
In the Bill we have also removed the right not to be sued that British Telecom has had because it has been a Crown authority. In future, customers and subscribers will be able to sue BT for the non-performance of service. Again, that is a substantial improvement in the rights of consumers. We have also approved clauses to allow new meters to be approved that will give a greater guarantee on bills. The most frequent complaints when telephone bills are 'wrong or too high is that the expense of someone else frequently telephoning to America always seems to be added to the wrong bill. We have also encouraged the introduction of trial systems to allow detailed telephone bills to be supplied.
The Bill is a great liberalisation measure. It is also a great measure of denationalisation. It is the biggest measure of denationalisation that has ever been brought before the House or any western country. It is often referred to as privatisation but that is a misnomer for the returning to the people of proper ownership. When the Labour party speaks of state control and nationalisation, it must realise that state control is by a bureaucratic elite. It is not control by the people. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will know that because he has held high office, and any Minister will know that the control of a nationalised industry is essentially by bureaucrats. State capitalism is the worst and basest form of capitalism.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that ICI is controlled by the people?
Mr. Baker: I am suggesting that ICI is controlled by its managers—the senior team of managers. It is controlled

245
by the market in that it has to exist in the market and go to the market for its survival. I am surprised that my hon. Friend, of all people, should make that point. He has been one of the greatest enemies of monopoly and state control. He should seek every opportunity to forward the argument to defeat the forces of state capitalism, from which part of our economy still suffers.
The sale of shares gives an opportunity for all workers in and subscribers to BT to take a share in the business. Already that is common practice in many parts of the world. AT and T, the largest telecommunications operation in the world, has 3 million shareholders. Nippon Telephone and Telegraph in Japan has many millions of bond holders. There are 18 million telephone subscribers in the United Kingdom. Many of them will want to become shareholders when the opportunity comes after the next election. Many members of the public will want to be shareholders. Institutions will want to be shareholders. I suspect that employees will want to be shareholders. We are in favour of the employees of BT becoming shareholders.
We had evasive answers from the Labour party when we asked it whether it approved of the employees of BT being allowed to become shareholders. The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that for his part he would not want to be a shareholder. However, we were asking him not for his opinion but to give some advice to the employees of BT. What is his advice? Will he encourage them to buy shares in their business? Will they, will they not? Will they join the sale? There are signs that many of them would like to have the opportunity to do so. There have been requests from pensioner groups of BT for a special position, if special positions exist for employees as well. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants us to include in the memorandum and articles of association special provisions to allow employee shareholdings.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I have been listening to the Minister's recommendation of employee shareholdings. Will he go as far as to say that he would welcome a majority shareholding by employees so that they would be the controllers of the new corporation?
Mr. Baker: We intend to sell 51 per cent. of BT. We have said that that would be offered on a wide scale. If all the employees of BT wanted to club together, they would have to provide a considerable sum of money to buy that amount, but we are the encouragers of wider share ownership.
Another advantage of the privatisation of BT is that it will not be bound by the state. It will be much freer. One of the largest telecommunications operators in the world is the Japanese system, NTT, which is the equivalent of BT. At the moment the workers are asking for their organisation to be privatised. They look upon that as a way of being most effectively able to compete with American competition.
The advantages of privatisation for BT management are manifest. It will have the freedom to manage without constant interference from the Government. It will have the freedom to diversify, to make commercial acquisitions, to operate abroad, to raise finance if and when it wants and in whatever form it wants, to structure tariffs in response to market needs and perceptions and to
246
determine pay. The advantages to BT workers of privatisation are that they will have the freedom and opportunity to own shares, to move into new areas of activity, both at home and abroad, to participate in the key decisions of the enterprise, if they want to exercise that freedom, and to negotiate pay and conditions without Government interference.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend say—he has said it before—to what extent BT would have the freedom to go into manufacturing, and how we could prevent a monopoly arising whereby there would be unfair competition with competitors?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend will know that one of the draft articles of association says that BT should be allowed to manufacture if it wants to do so. I do not expect that BT will want to extend dramatically into manufacturing. If it does, it will have to be bound by the provisions of the telecommunications competition code of the draft licence.
There are advantages in privatisation to BT management and BT workers, but there are also advantages for BT consumers. They, too, will have the opportunity to own a share of the telecommunications system. They will, if they wish, have a greater say in the management of that enterprise.
There are also advantages for the nation at large. The revolution that we have initiated will mean a massive redistribution of opportunities for the provision of telecommunications apparatus and services.
During the course of the Bill we have tried to elicit the views of the various parties on this matter. The SDP has been particularly evasive. We have not been able to discover during the proceedings on the Bill exactly what is the SDP policy on telecommunications.
Dr. John Cunningham: The SDP did not say anything about its policy in Darlington either.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) says that the SDP did not divulge that important information to the electors of Darlington. The SDP did not divulge the information because it does not have it. At the very centre of SDP policy is a hollowness and a complete vacuity. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) will attempt to fill that, but if he is trying to present a national policy to the country it is important that he should have policies on the new technologies and on telecommunications, which are the fastest growing areas of economic activity. If the SDP is trying to solicit votes, it owes it to the country to spell out its policies.
The Liberals did not seek to put a member of their party on to the Committee. I found that extraordinary as this is the most important Bill of the Session. I should have thought that they would give it higher priority. Once again, we have not heard the Liberal policy on liberalisation or privatisation.
Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister give the House some idea of how many Committees it is practicable for a Member to serve on at any one time?
Mr. Baker: One must have a sense of priorities. A sense of priority would have been to ask one of the Members of the Liberal party to serve on the most important Bill of the Session. Anyway, we did not miss the Liberals very much. None the less, the one Liberal policy over the years That I seem to have latched on to is

247
the belief in wider share ownership. That is one of the issues that the Liberal party has preached around the country. Liberals say, "We want wider share ownership so that people can be involved in our society." The Liberals have held conferences about it and issued pamphlets. They are being given an opportunity tonight to vote for it. The Bill, when it becomes law, will provide a great opportunity for wider share ownership—the greatest before the House of Commons since the war—but will they vote for it? When the Liberals are faced with the red meat of a real decision they are a little too fastidious. They say, "Do not thrust that decision upon us." They believe in the principle but when offered a chance to fulfil something they walk away from it. That has been the essence of Liberalism over the past few years.
I turn now to the Labour party's attitude. In Committee we have had a delightful tug of war between the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and the Labour Front Bench. It was a tug-of-war between the Post Office Engineering Union and official Labour party policy. We heard lectures from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and we are about to have another one.
Mr. Golding: Where was the tug-of-war? I had assumed that the two views were synonymous. Will the Minister tell us where they differed?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman may recall several occasions in Committee when he gave clear guidance to his colleagues on the Front Bench. That guidance was not entirely followed.
Mr. Golding rose—
Mr. Baker: I do not object to that, but there have been such occasions, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Committee stage was subject to a great deal of abuse. There were about 160 hours of debate. Labour Members who spoke at great length will have to answer certain questions about that. How, as a result of their filibustering, did they improve the Bill? They did not. When closely examined, the record shows that they had little effect in making significant changes in the Bill. The views that were put forward by several of my right hon. Friends stiffened the anti-competitive measures in the Bill. If the Opposition had been cleverer tactically, they could have gained quite a few victories, but in 160 hours of debate they achieved virtually nothing.
The policy that has been enunciated by the Labour party today is clear. Labour wants to restore the monopoly of British Telecom, as set out in paragraph 41 of the Labour party document. It also wants to sweep the Mercury network into that monopoly and take it into public ownership. That is a clear statement. The document also gives the Labour party policy on the electronics industry. Earlier in the debate, I was intrigued when the hon. Member for Whitehaven quoted in support of his argument the views of Lord Weinstock on cable. The hon. Gentleman said that this is not an area for the quick buck merchant. I am surprised therefore to find a euphemism for Lord Weinstock in the Labour party document. The Labour party says in that document that it wants to return to public ownership without compensation the public assets and rights hived off by the Tories. It says:
"We will establish a significant public stake in electronics."
248
That is a euphemism for Lord Weinstock. The Labour party wishes to take into public ownership a large part of the major electronics companies—Plessey, GEC, Ferranti and others. We now know where the Labour party stands.
I can think of no policy that would be more damaging to our country. One has only to consider what has been happening in France since such a policy was adopted two years ago. The massive nationalisation programmes of the French Government are running the country into near-bankruptcy. The losses of the nationalised industries in France are increasing and the enterprising and Lively French electronics industry is going through a difficult phase. The same thing would happen if the Labour party were to gain power and introduced such policies.
I have looked through the document today and it does not look to the future. It looks backwards all the time. It restates the policies and the attitudes which the Labour party has tried to follow and has instituted since the war, which have manifestly failed the country. The Labour party is marching shoulder to shoulder, but is marching backwards into the past.
The Bill is legislation for the future. The whole of Government communication policy is aimed at giving Britain the most advanced infrastructure and base from which to gain a pre-eminent place in the telecommunications era before us. We believe that this can be done only if the market is driven forward by competition and not dominated, corrupted and destroyed by monopoly.
7.38 pm
Mr. Orme: In the past 10 minutes we have had a political knockabout from the Minister.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: A political knockout.
Mr. Orme: I shall have something to say about the political situation and the attitude that we shall take to the Bill.
The Bill has had a long road, from last November until April 1983. We are nowhere near the end of that road, only part of the way down it. As the Minister knows, this will be a major issue at the general election. We shall want to debate this issue with the British people with all the facts on the table. We shall not be ashamed to put forward the policy that we have advocated throughout the Committee stage.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank all those who have opposed the Bill, especially my right hon. and hon. Friends who served on the Committee. I also thank all those who intend to vote against the Bill tonight. I wish to pay tribute to the experts who provided help and advice, not least the trade unions, the communication workers and the POEU. We are not hiding behind any organisation. We have debated the issue in the open. But we are pleased to pay tribute to those who gave us help and advice. We have been dealing with a highly technical and difficult Bill. I have not previously dealt with a Bill including so many technicalities. Although three of my hon. Friends have great expertise within the industry, most of us have had to deal with the Bill as it has progressed.
Despite the Government's appalling record in selling publicly owned industry, they will not swerve from their intention to conduct what has become known as the sale of the century—the sale of British Telecommunications in

249
the market place. The Government cannot pretend that such major legislation, which has taken so much of the time of the House, will benefit the nation.
I agree with the Minister that the Bill is the most important legislation this session. It is a major piece of denationalisation—it will denationalise a national asset that belongs to the British people. The majority of the control of BT will be handed over to a minority in our society.
British industry is in a critical state, with millions of workers in the dole queue. Yet the Government chose to spend their time, money and resources on producing such a terrible Bill. That gives some idea of the Government's priorities. How dare the Minister criticise the French when British manufacturing industry is collapsing around him? It is in a parlous state. Its decline has accelerated during the past four years of Conservative Government. He has no need to go to France to find something to criticise—he has only to look to his own back door.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is courteous, as he has been throughout the whole process of the Bill. I am grateful to him now, as I have been on previous occasions. He made a point about dole queues and jobs. Is he telling the House that for the same level of provision of telecommunications service, if BT were left as it is it would employ more people than it will under the Bill? If so, it is purely a recipe for inefficiency and for bleeding the public.
Mr. Orme: I shall say something about manning levels later. The Minister referred to scare stories. The staff of BT could be maintained at its present level, or even increased if that is done on a planned basis, if investment is made and if it is allowed to borrow money in the market. BT has made a profit for the past seven years. It has not taken any taxpayers' money during that time. Unfortunately, it must live on its profits and has not had sufficient to invest. If BT were left as a publicly owned monopoly, it would expand. As the Minister said, we are in an expanding market. Rather than take the gamble presented by the Bill, and rather than face a two-headed monster that will be half public and half private, with the uncertainty which that will create, BT should remain in public hands.
On Second Reading and during the 168 hours of debate in Committee, the Opposition made clear their opposition to the Bill. I make no apology for the amount of time taken. We were using parliamentary means to oppose the Bill. Because of the philosophical difference between the Opposition and the Government, there was no way that an accommodation could be reached. The gulf between us is as wide as this Table. The Government may have given a little here and a little there, but the Opposition are wholly opposed to the principles enshrined in the Bill.
During the past few days we have shown that we are opposed to any attempt to privatise BT. It is unnecessary, divisive and against the interests of the community. Because BT is a publicly owned corporation, it is fully accountable to the community for what it does and the way that it does it. The public have statutory rights to consumer watchdogs. There is direct control by Government. We want that control to be strengthened and BT made more accountable. Whatever organisation the Minister intends to set up, it will not be as strong or as effective as POUNC.
250
BT's plans are monitored and important matters that are not concerned only with profit maximisation are built into BT's operation. As a publicly owned corporation, it has essential social and community obligations that are directly linked with the quality of community life.
Underlying all BT's current operations is the belief in providing a national service—one integrated telecommunications network that is publicly owned and operated. All citizens should be entitled to a high standard of telephone service, irrespective of geographical location, social circumstances or whether they are business or residential customers. The philosophy of a national service for all will be severely restricted if BT is privatised.
During the debate on the original clause 3, and the new clause now in the Bill, the Minister went to great lengths to argue that rural services and emergency call services would not be damaged, that the cost of the service would not rise and so on. He went to tremendous lengths to try to prove those points, but he has not proved them to the satisfaction of the House or the country. BT will be in an entirely different ball game. The anxieties that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the rights of consumers, about the rural telephone service and about telephone kiosks in built-up areas such as my constituency in Salford and in London, will be proved well founded. Those services will come under tremendous pressure. Privatisation will lead to the diminution of those services at the expense of the community.
The shareholders will have to be satisfied by the production of a maximum return on their investment. The provision of loss-making services will come under real attack if we are not careful. We shall monitor that carefully if, by some ill fate, the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and the Government are able to implement it.
The Minister referred to the participation of BT employees as shareholders. Thousands of workers depend on BT for their jobs and futures. About 250,000 workers work directly for BT and tens of thousands more work for equipment suppliers. How many of them can be sure that their jobs are safe? Private forecasts which became public showed that between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs were threatened. It was against that background that we told the Government that jobs were in jeopardy.
The Minister said that we should let employees buy shares. As he knows, there is not a closed shop in BT, but about six trade unions represent about 97 per cent. of its employees. There are management unions and the Union of Communication Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union, which are affiliated to the TUC. All of them oppose what the Government are doing. Our advice to the employees of BT is, "Do not buy shares." Buying shares will not be in their long-term interests. Someone asked whether they could get a majority shareholding. That idea might be attractive to some of the minority parties in the House.
We should consider some of the major industries that the Government have denationalised. What percentage of British Aerospace do the workers there own? The answer is about 3 or 4 per cent. It is impossible for workers in BT to have anything like a controlling shareholding as the floatation will be about £3 billion to £4 billion.
Mr. Temple-Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconcile what he is saying with a question that I put to one of his hon. Friends in Committee with regard to the first

251
so-called privatisation—of the National Freight Company? After last year's results were announced, the argument and trouble was not about workers who had bought shares but about those who had not bought shares and felt that, because of the great profit, they should have been allowed to buy them in the first place and should be able to buy them on the same terms now.
Mr. Orme: The National Freight Corporation would make an ideal co-operative. It is impossible to make BT into a co-operative.
It is clear from what the Secretary of State and the chairman of BT, Sir George Jefferson, have said that the possibility of redundancies exists. British Airways, the National Freight Company and the British Transport Docks Board have been privatised by the Government. All suffered reductions in their work forces either immediately before or after they were sold.
Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House what has happened in terms of jobs to those nationalised industries that have not been privatised?
Mr. Orme: Under public ownership and planning, an endeavour has been made to maintain employment and extend markets for the product. Unfortunately, we have been faced by a Government policy during a depression and a time of lack of demand which means that jobs in both the public and private sectors have gone.
Workers in equipment manufacturing companies are not complacent either. Before liberalisation in 1981, BT bought more than 95 per cent. of its equipment from United Kingdom based companies. According to The Sunday Times of 20 March, Sir George Jefferson is
"determined to transform the relationship with BT's traditional suppliers".
He is aided and abetted by Mr. May of Martlesham. Indeed, Sir George Jefferson has started to place small orders overseas. Privatisation will increase the trend to import equipment. I hope that Conservative Members will bear in mind the fact that we are dealing with thousands of jobs in the private sector which are dependent on BT. They represent some of our major manufacturing industries. If we allow imports which are of a lower safety standard to flood in, the consequences will be disastrous both for BT and for employees in equipment manufacturing companies.
Mr. Henderson rose—
Mr. Orme: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
Employment prospects for the visually handicapped are also at risk. We welcome what the Minister included in clause 3 about handicapped people. However, BT has undertaken development work to ensure that most of the smaller boards that it markets can be adapted for use by blind operators. As an increasing amount of equipment is imported, there is a tremendous fear that boards that are not adapted for use by blind operators will flood the market. Therefore, their employment opportunities will be drastically reduced. Anyone who has seen blind people use telecommunications equipment as well as and, sometimes, better than many other people will agree that they are entitled to such opportunities. It would be extremely serious if their opportunities were jeopardised.
The recently published report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows the dramatic extent to which the
252
Government have divided the nation and how they have taken from the worst off and given to the better off. This Bill is another example of the Government's lack of social conscience. Another two nations will emerge—people with and people without telephones and telephone services.
The Government have failed to serve the nation as a whole. They have put more wealth and power into the hands of the already wealthy and powerful, and they continue to do so. This Bill will serve only to deepen that divide. Consumers, employees of BT and workers throughout the telecommunications industry are more likely to suffer than to benefit from privatisation. The beneficiaries will be the speculators, the overseas equipment manufacturers and the importers.
That is the sorry tale of the Bill so far. We know that it will be a general election issue and we shall debate it throughout the country. We shall continue to oppose it. We repeat to those people who try to make a profit from public assets that the next Labour Government will restore the public telecommunications monopoly to BT. As the Minister said when he read from our policy statement, that will include project Mercury. We shall put the Bill on the shelf and invest in the future of telecommunications in Britain. We believe that telecommunications has a great future for Britain and that it should be owned by Britain.
7.59 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) because it gives me the chance, as the first Back-Bench Member to address the House on Third Reading, to pay a few compliments. I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said in an intervention. We are grateful to the Opposition for their ever-courteous and able conduct during such a controversial Bill. Our system may not be perfect, but it would not work were it not for the way in which both sides of the Committee conducted matters. They made their differences plain, but always in such a way that we could go through the night together, week by week, without coming to physical exchanges.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West was ably aided by his deputy, the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham). We reached a stage where, in the middle of the night, all-party deputations were sent to the Tea Room to interview the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to ask him to desist, which he invariably did, albeit after four, five or even 11½ hours. I am pleased that he has now retreated as far as he can, although he remains within the Chamber and, therefore, must be treated with the necessary respect.
Back-Bench Members and Opposition Front-Bench Members are grateful for the aid they received from outside bodies. The National Farmers Union and British Telecom were a great help to me. We must remember those who sat with us during our long nocturnal sessions, whether from British Telecom or the unions. A gentleman from Cable and Wireless was about to lay a cable in the south Pacific, and was obviously dreaming of doing his first hula-hula, but was dramatically reassigned to observe the Committee by day and by night. I hope that his employers will take note of my words and let him lay his cable somewhere more congenial than the Committee Room.

253
Although my words may be slightly flippant, they have a serious purpose. Although our system is remarkable in that the camaraderie allows it to survive, it is, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, not healthy. We must find a way of devising an automatically agreed timetable, and there is much agreement on this on both sides of the House. The matter arose many times during the debate on the guillotine motion, but I want it to be placed firmly on the record because it will be most important in the future.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Many of us are opposed to agreed timetables, because the Government would have no opposition and could carry on as they wished. The Opposition have a duty and a responsibility to harry the Government for as long and as hard as they can.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. As the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) had raised the matter, I allowed the intervention, but he must not pursue it. We must return to the Third Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Temple-Morris: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I may answer the intervention. As the right hon. Member for Salford, West said, where there are ideological differences, one must resist the Bill. That was implicit in the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but to oppose it in that way amounts to no more and no less than machismo. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the achievement is minimal. If we had a more effective system, where by an Opposition could agree to time and to a system that resembles the thorough examination of a Select Committee, the Opposition might achieve something. They might, through their arguments, attract a Government Back-Bench Member like me to help them to improve or alter a measure. This is a classic example of a Bill that could have been examined in that way.
The Bill has been hurried, and the amendments to our beloved old clause 3—as it came to be called yesterday evening—might have been refreshing for democracy, but were not ideal for legislative principle. I wish to help my hon. Friends the Ministers, but it is clear that too much happened outside the Committee for comfort, especially the discussions on the licence which took place and continue to take place. Neither we nor the Minister knows when British Telecom will agree the licence. However, when the Bill is enacted and we lose our authority over it, we must rely upon Ministers to secure from British Telecom the terms of the licence set out in "Ringing the Changes". This becomes increasingly important as the Bill leaves the House and goes to another place. I hope that my hon. Friends appreciate my point. If I were British Telecom, I should delay negotiation on this matter until the Bill had cleared the House, because then I could negotiate much harder.
In many respects "Ringing the Changes" is an admirable document. Although I and many others have criticised it, it contains only a submission of what the Department would wish to see in the licence. Part 3 of the document contains many good provisions for rural areas. We shall expect my hon. Friends to live up to those terms during negotiations on the licence.
Another outside factor was the Littlechild report, which was a further sign of the way in which the matter was
254
rushed. Policy matters regarding the implementation of the Bill were being decided outside the Committee room while we soldiered through our 161½-hour nocturnal venture. I regret that some hon. Members wish to continue that, because I have sat through such sittings while in opposition, as have most hon. Members who have been Members of the House for more than one Parliament.
Despite the definitive answer of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State last night about duty being written into clause 3, or appearing in the margin, the new clause will be debated in another place. I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment at length on this matter, but perhaps he will consider writing the word "duty" into the clause, bearing in mind that it is already in a subsequent clause. I cannot understand why it is not in the clause, and I feel that it should be there. I take the point that "shall" equals a clear duty in this and other clauses, but when the Bill goes to the other place, will those responsible note that "duty" should go into the clause? I hope that their Lordships will table an appropriate amendment.
I shall repeat a question that I have asked the Minister twice, but to which I have still not had a reply. Perhaps I might have a letter on the subject. It is something that tends to drift by, probably because one is raising more serious matters that require more of a ministerial answer, and concerns paragraph 19(c) of "Ringing the Changes". I put it in Committee, I put it last night, and I put it again now. If one wanted to be argumentative, one could make more of it. Paragraph 19(c) of "Ringing the Changes" says that the service does not have to be connected, and it is not reasonable to connect, if the person concerned
"will not pay BT the costs attributable to the supply to that person of the service".
That appears to be intended to meet the circumstances that happen every day where BT has to charge for the connection of the supply if it is not otherwise economic to instal it. It is meant to cover the provisions that have always been there. However, as it reads now, it is still not finally negotiated. This is a potential threat to all the rather good things in the rest of "Ringing the Changes" that affect rural areas.
We need at least a recognition of the problem of public call boxes during the transition. If there is to be a longish transition, BT, flexing its capitalist and privatised free enterprise muscles, may be tempted to get rid of more public call boxes than would otherwise be necessary. Some recognition of that would be a help, whether it comes in a letter to me or in the winding-up speech.
This is a good Bill. I have tried to do my best for the interests that I represent. The Bill can do nothing but good, and can improve BT. The problem is that it might even make BT too good, and we shall have to spend too much time trying to control the private monopoly that we have created.
The Bill is good for the brave new world of technology. It gives formidable powers to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friends the Ministers who serve under him, who are to use those powers in the public interest. It is perhaps as a word of caution as well as congratulation that I say that we depend on them to use those powers well.
8.13 pm
Mr. Gordon Oakes: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) has rightly entered a number of caveats from the Conservative Benches about various aspects of the Bill. There is an ideological divide

255
between the hon. Gentleman and me, but I agree that this has been a hurried and sloppy Bill. The Minister for Industry and Information Technology said that this would be the most important Bill of this Session of Parliament. If that is so, it is a disgrace that so many important matters that affect ordinary people and local authorities have been completely ignored and, because of the guillotine, have not been discussed by the Committee or the House.
The Bill literally affects the man and woman in the street, especially clause 9 and schedule 2. Quite apart from the ideological divide between both sides of the House, such a sloppy Bill should not have received a Third Reading. I am speaking from the Back Benches, not as a shadow spokesman for the environment but as the vice-president of the Association of County Councils, which Conservative Members will realise is by no means a Labour body. It is dominated by Conservative shire councils in England and Wales. It has written to me as its vice-president asking me to raise on Third Reading its sincere and acute concern at some of the provisions of the Bill as they affect local authorities.
County councils are responsible for 96 per cent. of the road network, and the Department of Transport is responsible for only 4 per cent. One of the principal concerns of highway authorities is the effect of digging up roads. Holes in the road are dug by statutory undertakers, under the powers given to them by various Acts to install communication systems, electricity systems and gas systems, and for all sorts of other reasons.
The Association of County Councils points out that even with the best possible reinstatement, simply digging up a highway involves destruction of its integrity, with eventual road maintenance implications for local authorities. Only last week, on 23 March, evidence was given to the Select Committee on Transport that showed that there were approximately 1·8 million highway openings in England and Wales in 1982. Evidence was also given to the Committee that the severe weather that we had last winter did great damage to our road system, 30 per cent. of which was directly the result of trench reinstatement.
One would have thought that at least a Conservative Government would have had some discussion with county councils on the Bill and would have done something about those discussions. However, they have done nothing. Clause 9 ignores the representations of local authorities that are acutely concerned that the number of people digging up roads will multiply as a result of the Bill. Not only that, but whereas the statutory undertakers who now dig up the roads—the water, electricity and gas boards and BT—are responsible public bodies, with a responsibility to the public and not only to their own pockets, the people who will have power under schedule 2 and section 9 to dig up the roads will be people whose thoughts are dominated not by the public interest but by private profit and cheeseparing on behalf of their shareholders.
So what about local authorities? This Government have so severely restrained their direct labour departments as a deliberate act of policy that those departments are no longer there to do the necessary reinstatement work. They have so toned down the number of administrators and inspectors of local authorities in their financial restrictions on county councils that local authorities can no longer provide the necessary supervision of roads that are broken open by statutory undertakers. Local authorities can place only a certain amount of reliance on nationalised bodies
256
such as the electricity and gas boards and so on, when they dig up roads. They have little faith in private bodies whose main concern is not the public interest, but private profit, when they do reinstatement work after installing a system or repairing a system that is already installed.
This is a serious matter to which the Government should have paid much greater attention. I do not say that they should have listened to the voices of those who are dogmatically opposed to the Bill—that is certainly not true of the Association of County Councils, which is not opposed to the principles of the Bill, but to the sloppiness of clause 9 and schedule 2—but they should have paid attention to the interests that clearly affect every roan and woman in the street.
That is the problem when private undertakers dig up roads. There is another problem. What if the bodies created by the Bill go into liquidation? Public authorities do not go into liquidation; private authorities can do so. Who picks up the tab? Who has to pay? The ratepayers, about whom Conservative Members are so concerned, have to come in when a firm goes bankrupt and reinstate the road that has been damaged by the private operator. No doubt the Minister will say in reply that amendment No. 105, rushed through the House earlier under the guillotine, adequately deals with that consideration. It does not. It far from satisfies the Association of County Councils, and it should far from satisfy this House in deciding whether to give the Bill a Third Reading.
The association and all local authorities would like licensed operators to be subject to section 181 of the Highways Act 1980. That section allows the highway authority to decide to license the breaking of the highway and imposes its conditions on people who break into the highway, because it, as the highway authority, has the responsibility of putting matters right. The Bill as drafted does not have that effect, and the association is concerned about the wide drafting of clause 9(2), which seems to provide the Secretary of State with a wide discretion to apply the telecommunications code—and with it, in effect, the rights of the statutory undertaker—without any consultation with either local authorities in general or with the particular county council that is responsible for the roads in the area.
The association did not just raise the matter now, on Third Reading. It took the matter up with the Minister before Christmas. It has had discussions with the Minister before Christmas, but those discussions have still not been resolved. The Minister could have tabled amendments to the Bill on Report to put the matter right. The association is worried and alarmed that the Minister did not do so. I only hope that the Under-Secretary, in winding up, will at least assure local authorities that the matters that I have mentioned in opposing the Third Reading will be put right in another place.
8.22 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: One cannot doubt that the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is a Front-Bench spokesman. It is curious to note the way in which we already rewrite the history of our Committee proceedings. It is true that much of the Bill was not discussed, and that important concepts have gone by the by. Last night, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), tried to give himself and his colleagues a more heroic role than they in fact played in our proceedings. I would not have

257
mentioned that, but the hon. Gentleman made a gratuitous reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and me in connection with the role that we could have played in Committee, had we been more assiduous—or something along those lines.
Dr. John Cunningham rose—
Mr. Shepherd: I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman did not give way to me last night, and I do not propose to give way to him tonight. I made the observation because we believe that this is a highly important Bill. The fight that was undertaken on behalf of rural constituencies by my hon. Friend—
Dr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Shepherd: I shall do so on this occasion.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have not checked Hansard to see what I said last night, but I said then, and I repeat now, that Conservative Back Benchers had missed an opportunity, with the honourable exception of the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I was not criticising the hon. Gentleman. I was paying him and his hon. Friend a compliment. I think that he has completely misunderstood what I said.
Mr. Shepherd: I look forward to rereading the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I commented on the rewriting of history because if one looks at the amendments moved in Committee and the Front-Bench speeches that were made in Committee, one sees that the hon. Member for Whitehaven was conspicuous, almost, by his absence. I understand that. I regret saying so, but he was conspicuous by his absence from our debates on clause 1 having decided to be elsewhere during our discussion of such an important issue.
I am conscious, too, that the steps taken to improve the standards and quality of the Bill by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) played an important role in strengthening some of our attitudes towards the protection of rural services.
Ministers know that I had grave doubts about transferring a monopoly from public to private ownership. I could not see why one should consign to limited private interests the ability to extract from the community profits higher than would accrue in a competitive arrangement, and to provide a service that would be subject only to a limited check. I argued that in any transfer it was important to ensure that there was a clear and strong regulatory function laying identifiable duties upon the Director General of the Office of Telecommunications. My first reading of the Bill suggested to me that the defences and protection for the consumer were inadequate, and I am not entirely satisfied that we have arrived at the most adequate arrangements to protect us during the transitional period.
Ministers argue that regulation inhibits the development of an industry and that therefore we should take the important stride of moving from a non-competitive monopoly to an open and competitive position. I support that attitude, and during our discussions on the Bill I have argued that the transfer should be made as rapidly as
258
possible, but in reality it will not happen for many years. Even Ministers have argued that a dominant monopoly will persist for many years to come. I want the Bill to be an engine for competition, but on that level the Bill is rather weak. The Minister of State has said that I misunderstood the extent to which he has liberalised the service, but words are not sufficient in themselves. The Minister of State said yesterday:
"At present the public telecommunications operators that we envisage licensing under the legislation will be BT, Mercury and Hull, and two radio-telephone networks."
He continued:
"It is not our intention in the foreseeable future to go beyond that."—[0fficial Report, 28 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 51.]
Where is the engine of competition there? We had already announced, in the absence of privatisation, that Mercury should come into existence, and Hull has been in existence for many years. The great step forward, therefore, is reduced to two radio-telephone networks. That is hardly a great engine for competition, yet that is what we pin so much of our faith on.
I am anxious about this matter. I therefore urge my noble Friends to consider carefully what we mean by an engine for competition. I argued yesterday that perhaps we should have added a clause to insist that licences should be granted in the absence of compelling reasons why the granting of a licence would be damaging to the overall system. I argued also that if a licence is refused, the reasons for refusal should be published, and possibly even that one should have access to the courts to challenge the reasons given either by the Director General of the Office of Telecommunications or by the Secretary of State.
One must look at actions as well as words. I accept the observations of Opposition Front and Back Bench Members that the Bill was hastily constructed and ill thought out in many regards. The little niggles that suggested to me that the intentions of the Bill as originally framed were not as generous as the words resided in such pointers as the Government's initial reluctance to accept the non-discrimination principle, which is of the essence of the protection of our freedom and choice in the market place. If a private monopoly were able to discriminate against one class of customer or one business as opposed to another, our commercial freedoms and independence would be at risk.
Ministers referred to the Bill as an engine for liberalisation and change in our telecommunications system, but what did the change amount to? The first instrument monopoly was to remain, but it would no longer be a public service monopoly. It would be a private monopoly, consigned to private hands. Private individuals would thus be able to seek whatever return they wished for the use of their services.
As the Opposition know, I greatly resent monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies. I could not understand how Conservative Ministers could argue that British Telecom as a private company should retain the right to insist on people buying the instrument of its choice, presumably at the price of its choice. That was clearly wrong. Yet my approaches to Ministers on the subject were rejected. One of the lessons of serving on a Bill of this kind is the appreciation that our own influence with our colleagues is perhaps less than that of outsiders. It took Professor Littlechild to concentrate my hon. Friend the Minister's mind on this. Conservative Members had argued last year and in 1981 for the removal of the prime instrument

259
monopoly, but our case was rejected until Professor Littlechild argued that the monopoly was unacceptable. He said that it ought to go, so go it did.
In attempting to read the Government's mind on these matters, a little incident yesterday shocked me profoundly. It may not have shocked other hon. Members, as I could not find a colleague to join me as a teller in a Division. I refer to new clause 5. My interpretation of that proposal was not rejected by the Under-Secretary of State. As I understand it, if a licensee—possibly a mighty monopoly such as British Telecom—acted in breach of its licence or its obligations under the Bill in such a way as to damage the commercial viability of or cause losses to another company or individual it would not be open to the aggrieved party to sue for damages in court.
In my view, it is a fundamental principle of Conservative philosophy that if one is damaged by the actions of another party in default of a statutory duty laid down by way of a licence one should have a claim against that party. In such circumstances I could be put out of business, or my constituents' prospects could be destroyed. Whether that is done casually or deliberately, we should surely be able to ask a court to judge whether the action was fair and whether compensation or damages should result.
Having read the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to that case, I can only say that I shall not look to him in the future for the defence of my freedom, prosperity and commercial success. I was deeply despondent at the way in which he rejected the seriousness of the argument. He could have agreed to give the matter further consideration, but it seemed that whatever the risk or damage to a company or individual the overriding consideration was that there should be no inhibition to the introduction of new technology and new processes and the advancement of the telecommunications industry.
Whatever else Members of Parliament may be, we are surely defenders of the rights and protection of smaller businesses and individuals. I respected those who fought hard and long to protect the interests of rural residents and the services necessary to make their lives tolerable and acceptable. That is a first condition of the Bill and I am glad that in new clause 1 the Government made it a matter of paramount importance.
One or two other very important issues have not been dealt with so far.
The purpose of transferring a monopoly and introducing competition with a regulatory authority was to ensure that no dominant supplier could abuse its position in the market place. That abuse would lead to a fundamental misallocation of resources. The reason for having a market place is to determine where the best utilisation of resources can be obtained in everybody's interest. By and large, that is how we benefit.
I have argued that a monopoly as dominant as British Telecom should be broken down into regional companies. There was virtually no discussion of that in Committee. It is a respectable argument and should be given some credence or airing in this House. When such a considerable monopoly exists, the fear is that it may use its dominant market position to act covertly, or not so covertly, against the general good. I do not think that Oftel is as powerful as Ministers would argue. The powers of the dominant supplier may be used to undermine and distort the market, or lead to the misallocation of resources. Why have hon. Members not examined more closely in open debate the
260
question of breaking down the monopoly into operating companies and releasing shares in those companies? I have considered that. In conversations with my ministerial friends and in interventions in Committee, Ministers have responded, "Do you not realise that the accounting systems currently in operation in British Telecom are inadequate and it cannot do that?" Therefore, the opportunity to break down the monopoly into regional companies is restricted. If it is imperative to sell BT quickly, we lose the opportunity to break it down into operating companies. But if the argument to sell as a whole is examined, is it as convincing as it sounds? The Government are delaying the sale of British Telecom until after the next election. That has been implicit in everything they have done and has been openly stated. The electorate will, rightly, have an opportunity to make a judgment.
As to the accounting procedures, is it not a remarkable indictment that all Governments have tolerated an accounting procedure or system that cannot identify whether or not the operation loses money in clearly defined areas, whether a customer or a consumer is paying a fair or reasonable price, or whether the company is allocating its resources in a responsible and reasonable way? Apparently, none of those things could be carried out. The Government have injected an accounting procedure and are now injecting accountants. The Government will be able to break down the monopoly into various operating companies which will not of themselves have a dominant market position and will not easily frustrate the introduction of new licensees and their success in the market.
It is important to realise that once British Telecom has been sold off after the Conservative party's success at the next election, the Government will be virtually denying themselves the opportunity of subsequently breaking it down.
The United States has been referred to frequently in discussions on the Bill. The Bell Telephone Corporation was the dominant market company in the United States, and it was found necessary to break it down into operating companies. In that way, it was deemed that the market and the interests of the consumer would best be served. Britain has virtually rejected that course of action because the imperative to sell as fast as possible is more important than the shape of our telecommunications industry in the future.
Yesterday, the Minister said that it was not the Government's intention in the forseeable future to license anything more in this field than the additional radiotelephone networks. Does that not diminish the very argument that has been advanced that liberalisation is going apace and that the consumer and the potential operator will be protected by competitive market forces? As it stands, that is not a reality either now or in the foreseeable future. Competition means that there is choice, and access to different competing operating companies. We shall not have that choice. Yesterday, the Minister said that he did not foresee introducing competition. Therefore, are we not falling into the very trap that I feared from the beginning, of falling between two stools? We shall have a dominant force in the market that is able covertly, or otherwise, to distort the market place to ensure that competition is controlled, regulated or under its surveillance.
In addition, we are doing something I believe to be terribly un-Conservative in that we are husbanding into life a competitor— Mercury — and ensuring in turn that it

261
will not be subject to additional competition. That is a not very Conservative philosophy and gives me cause for great anxiety. It is important that we should move towards competition. I want the Department to push on that front and to follow through. I do not want competition to be limited in the way that my hon. Friend the Minister has said. The Minister then turned on me and said that I did not realise how much he had done. It is extraordinarily contradictory to argue that we are forcibly liberalising and then to say, in response to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that we shall not license anything more than BT, Mercury, Hull and two radio telephone networks in the foreseeable future and that the hon. Gentleman should not worry about it. It is contradictory to say that we should first ensure that they survive and that hon. Members should remember that BT is in difficulty and earns only £1 billion per annum at present on revenues of about £5 billion. That is a return on sales of about 20 per cent. and is no small sum. BT is a tremendously dominant monopoly. It is the nearest thing that we have to a dominant monopoly that can be transferred to private interests. If we do that, it is important that it should either be strenuously regulated in the interim or that competition should be grasped as quickly as possible. The Government are in danger of falling between two stools. It is not sufficient to tell the House that there will be only one competitor, meaning Mercury, and a couple of radio telephone companies. That is not competition and does not represent any great move towards it.
It is not sufficient to say, "Do not visit upon me the sins of the inadequacies of all our past accounting systems." It is insufficient to say that in two years we have moved forward faster than in the previous 50 years. That is no great thing. The lessons of competition and of free enterprise and of their implications for the allocation of resources and the generation of wealth are well understood by most hon. Members, even, I hope, by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), who has spoken so trenchantly on behalf of Socialism in the past century. Even he has grasped some of the concepts involved. That is why I witnessed a great affront last night when the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) discounted the implications of a dominant monopoly not performing on its licence, and so doing great commercial damage to small or large interests while being unable to be sued in the courts for redress.
I urge that principle on the House and on the other place for consideration. I have tried to outline the reasons for my anxieties and the central weakness in the strategy of the present ministerial team. During consideration of the Bill I have urged amendments on the Government. The spirit of some of them have been taken, and I am grateful for that. Some have been rejected, perhaps rightly so. However, I am not sure that the importance of moving towards genuine competition has been understood. I reiterate that when the Minister limits competition, arguing that that in itself is a force for change, it is not a happy state of affairs. I hope that my ministerial colleagues will give that point consideration between now and when the Bill returns to the House. However, in the absence of those changes I shall bide my time and, for the moment, abstain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Before I call the next hon. Member it might be helpful if I informed the House that the Front Bench speeches are expected to begin at about 9.30 pm. A number of Members still wish to speak, so short speeches would be helpful.
8.45 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I shall be brief. The contribution of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has revealed the effect of rushing legislation like this through the House. Members on the Government Benches now realise that there is an essential dichotomy in what we are discussing and that it has not been properly resolved. The hon. Member and several other hon. Members on the Government side contributed to the argument in Committee on several aspects of this, no one more forcefully than he. Nevertheless, we have a Bill which provides for changing from a public to a private monopoly—or possibly a private duopoly, with one and a half companies or whatever.
The benefits that are supposed to come from competition are unlikely to come for most areas. Certainly they will not come for areas such as mine. We shall lose the element of service which has been so essential in the telecommunications network in rural areas such as the one I represent and we certainly will not get any benefit that may come from the concept of competition, because there will not be competition in an area like mine. It is an area that probably will put cost rather than profit on to the network.
There are serious misgivings even at this stage among those who are close to this industry, both those who are working in it and those who represent in local authorities and other bodies the opinions of the consumers and the community. There is a feeling that rural areas—and possibly inner city areas where there may be serious oncosts because of vandalism to telephone kiosks, and of digging up the roads—will not be so attractive with the cut-throat competition which may result from this Bill. We may find that the service that has been built up over the years will be eroded. I do not think that the points put forward on this have been satisfactorily answered even by the introduction of new clause 1 yesterday.
I say in passing that it is unsatisfactory that a new clause such as this should come forward without an opportunity properly to debate the amendments to it because of the stage at which it was introduced. Having had many hours in Committee upstairs, we would have hoped that at the very least we could have had an opportunity to go into this properly and coherently on Report.
Responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) a moment ago, I too believe that there are lessons to be learnt from the Committee stage of this Bill. Although having structured debates in Committee may restrict some of the freedom of opposition, it may be in the interest of getting better legislation overall that we should look at the way in which we handle this sort of Bill in Committee. Provided there is flexibility to take up new points not previously raised in Committee in any structured timetable, there are strong arguments in favour of having a more rational approach to the Committee stage than we have seen in the past.
The lesson that I have learnt is that I should never, on introducing an amendment, allow another hon. Member to move it, particularly if he intends to take 11½ hours. However eloquent the moving of the amendment may have

263
been, I found it something of a chore to sit for 111/2 hours listening to the moving of my own amendment. I learnt a lesson the hard way.
Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I moved the amendment as a probing amendment so that the hon. Gentleman might have his composure restored?
Mr. Wigley: Yes. I was grateful to the hon. Member at the time, but in accepting his kind invitation to move the amendment I did not appreciate everything that it entailed.
The Minister, in opening the debate earlier this evening, said that this was not a privatisation measure but was giving greater public involvement in the telecommunications industry. No stretch of the imagination can lead us to accept that as a basic assumption behind the Bill. A very small part will be played by the employees in controlling the company even if they take up shares. I intervened earlier to underline the reality that employees will not be in anything like a dominant position as shareholders. If I thought that the employees could practically get to a position of holding a majority of the shares, I would think twice about that because I believe that there are certain attractions in going in that direction. In this sort of industry, however, with the sort of share capital we are talking about and with the practicalities of employees taking up any significant shareholding, all the Minister is doing is painting a picture that appears superficially attractive but in practical terms will have very little impact. The reality is that those who control the new companies will be the managers. As the Minister said, the Bill gives greater freedom to managers and makes them less answerable. No doubt the managers will enjoy that, but whether that will give the service that we as a community expect has certainly not been proven either in Committee or on Report.
Finance is another unsatisfactory aspect. In Committee we discussed the fact that there is no mechanism for ensuring that there is an independant means to finance a service, if that is required. New clause 1 creates a greater obligation, in that, for example, the community council could take the telecommunications companies to court as was suggested yesterday. However, in practice we know that it cannot afford to do so.
It is no use saying that only 30 or 40 telephone kiosks have been removed in rural areas in the past couple of years. Two years ago there was a massive list of suggested closures. That those kiosks were not removed was no doubt because of the public uproar at the time. Many suspected that there was a holding back and that after the enactment of this Bill there would be proposals for closures. The Director General and the Minister will have to keep a close eye on how that develops in practice. We fear that there will be massive closures of telephone kiosks in rural areas.
Another fear that was not resolved in Committee is whether there will be discrimination between the charges that are made in practice to certain categories of consumers. We have fears that the cost of installing telephones for some consumers in rural areas will be high and will be another charge on the rural community. Nothing has put our mind at rest on that.
The Bill will go forward from the House to another place. We have seen from other Bills in this Parliament that the other place plays a greater role in reforming
264
legislation than does this House. There are many parts of the Bill that the other place should consider in detail. It should scrutinise what has been said here and look particularly at the new clauses with a view to strengthening the Bill. I hope that when the Bill returns to this House it will be a much better Bill than that which is leaving us now, despite the fact that no Bill along these lines will be a service to the people I represent.
8.52 pm
Mr. Penhaligon: We are in the midst of a remarkable parliamentary occasion. In one hour and eight minutes one suspects that the Bill will obtain a clear majority on its Third Reading. I recognise, as the Minister said earlier, that this is a massive and important Bill and is probably the biggest denationalisation or privatisation measure—call it what one will—in the annals of Parliament
The Bill was guillotined in Committee after 168 hours of debate. Significant portions of the Bill have not been discussed anywhere. I suppose that I have had as many letters about citizens band radio provisions as about anything else yet I could discover only a few column inches in the Official Report on that subject.
We are one hour and seven minutes from the Bill becoming an Act and we have the best attended House that we have had all day, with approximately 20 hon. Members present. It is a most peculiar way to draw up good legislation. So much time is spent in Committee on so little and yet a lot of time is given on the Floor of the House when, in general, hon. Members—I am not having a go at anybody—do not feel that there is any useful contribution that they can make.
My party supported the British Telecommunications Act 1981—or the Mercury Bill, as it has been called often during tonight's debate. That decision has been justified by events. There has been an improvement because of competition. We thought that Act would lead to real competition in specific areas of this complex industry. I am pleased that we supported that Act and I am even more pleased at the undoubted effects it has had. The prime reason why my party supported that Act was that we saw it as a practical way to reduce a monopoly. Monopolies are one of the root causes of some of our economic difficulties and are a general enemy of the people.
I listened carefully to the Minister's reasons for supporting the Bill. Most of them were reasons for supporting the previous legislation rather than this Bill. The new corporation that we are on the verge of setting up will be, to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable, for most of my constituents, from the monopoly they now have to deal with. I do not see that there is any substantial difference or advantage in a monopoly operated by private shareholders as opposed to one run by the State. In the former case one could make a complaint in the House and in the latter case one may get the Director General to overcome an unacceptable practice, but the differences between the two are only marginal.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has done great battle for rural areas in Committee; he has been assisted by Conservative Members, whom I thank. They made some progress. It is easy to get carried away with the progress that has been made. I suspect that Members

265
spent so much time in Committee that, having made a little progress on one thing, they convinced themselves that they had made much progress to justify their great labour.
I read part of the proceedings, and saw the constant claim by British Telecom that kiosks cost £2,000 a year to maintain. That may be a national average figure, but to argue that kiosks in remote parts of my constituency cost £2,000 a year to maintain is a fantasy of the first order. They are painted about once a decade and the money is taken out of them once a quarter. That accounts for almost the total expenditure on them — rightly so. They are remote and people do not destroy them or break them up. Some kiosks in my constituency are regarded by local people as their responsibility. They sweep them out in the morning and remove the cobwebs, the snails and the other things that find such kiosks attractive. It is preposterous that the figure of £2,000 a year for maintenance should be trotted out constantly for these kiosks.
In my reading of the Committee proceedings I could not discover the answer to a question which I put on Second Reading: if a telephone installation is destroyed in a storm, who will pay for it to be repaired? It was a simple question to ask on Second Reading, yet with just about an hour to go on Third Reading I still have not got a clear answer as to whether it will be the general responsibility of the new company or whether the company may send the bill to one of my remote farmers for the repair of his one-off installation.
The Bill has been introduced more because of party dogma than advantage for the people. It is yet another saga in the pathetic parliamentary nationalisation and denationalisation roundabout to which we are all subjected. Already the Conservative and Labour parties have reduced the British Steel Corporation to its present sorry state. Sadly we may here be witnessing the first round of reducing British Telecom to the same condition. If the Bill heralds two decades of nationalising and denationalising this great industry, which is vital and important to everyone in the nation, hon. Members will have spent many hours working against the interests of their constituencies.
My party will vote against Third Reading because we are in favour of reducing monopoly but we do not see that this Bill makes any useful contribution to that worthy cause.
8.59 pm
Mr. Marlow: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief, I trust. I have supported the Bill. The one thing that I believe has helped the Bill to reach the stage that it has tonight with as much good will as it has had, and with such little truculence and bad-tempered opposition, has been the way that my hon. Friend the Minister has brought the Bill before the House, has dealt with the Bill and dealt with queries and his constant courtesy to everyone in Committee and within the House as the Bill has proceeded. [Interruption.] It may well be his job. Other people had had similar jobs but they have done it with nothing like the same degree of effect, restraint, compassion, thought and courtesy that my hon. Friend has put into the Bill.
We have just heard the Liberal party spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) talking about the Bill. He does not want British Telecom to be
266
denationalised. No doubt when it is denationalised he will not want to nationalise it again. He does not seem to have any proposal to do anything about anything, just to criticise the objectives, procedures and activities of everyone else. He has nothing positive to put forward himself, purely criticism of others.
My hon. Friend made a point about the Liberals when he opened the debate. The problem with the Liberal party is this great paradox—why was not the Liberal party on the Bill? I will tell the House why not—because it knew that it was going to be hard work and it knew that it would be a long Bill. The paradox of the Liberal party is that it spends all its time getting here, rushing around looking for by-elections to fight, but when members of the Liberal party get here they are not the slightest bit interested in being here. That is why they did not want to participate in this Bill.
I am a supporter of the Bill. I appreciate the difficulties that my hon. Friend has had. We are breaking new ground and we are moving forward with speed. We are going into new and uncharted territory. It is a very difficult thing for a Government to do. I think that the Government have done the best they can in very difficult circumstances. The reason that the Bill is important—as my hon. Friend says it is the most important bit of legislation in this session—is that since 1945 large chunks of British life and industry have been taken away from the private sector and the people and put under public bureaucracy.
Much of our industry and many of our people now work within the public sector. Other people work within the private sector. One part of our commercial and industrial life is responsive to the needs of the public and the market and is efficient, profitable and flexible, whereas a whole raft of other activities suffers from bureaucracy, lack of competition and lack of commercial discipline. One of the saddest effects of this is that for those who work in the public sector, although they may be forced to work in a relatively inefficient way and although at the moment there may be more people actually doing work than need be there to do the work, it is a very unsatisfactory working environment in which people have committed their lives.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has said that his fear is that if the Bill becomes law, which it will I can assure him, it will have a devastating effect upon jobs. I think that the opposite is the case. In fact, I am sure that the opposite is the case. As the right hon. Member for Salford, West knows, we are moving into new frontiers of technology. There will be many new opportunities within telecommunications, many new products and many new areas of activity which can benefit the whole nation and everyone that lives in it.
We had a structure. I think that it was the wrong structure. Even if it were the right structure, as we move forward we shall have new structure. That is what the Government and my hon. Friend are putting before the nation. If we have, as we are to, the right new structure by and large, I appreciate that some things will not be right the first time and there will have to be modifications. If, by and large, we are to have the right structure then within that right structure, the market and activity will develop, new jobs will come into being, new companies will come into being, new products will come into being and new companies will manufacture and build those new products. I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Salford, West is being pessimistic. He is wrong. By following the Bill

267
through, we shall not destroy jobs, but in the event we shall create jobs, not hundreds of jobs, not thousands of jobs but tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Mr. Penhaligon: Hundreds of thousands of jobs?
Mr. Marlow: Yes. Hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West was crying about the effects on the manufacturers and the suppliers of the industry. Recently Conservative Members and an Opposition Member spoke to the suppliers of the industry. They want the Bill to go forward. They want this liberalisation to come into being because they believe that that way there will be more opportunities for the industry and for the manufacturers. What they are concerned about is other countries, where they do not have this liberalisation. They would like to see that liberalisation go forward there. If we go forward in this direction, we shall have the power and the ability to force our competing countries, particularly within the Common Market, to move in the same direction. We shall be in the forefront. We shall be there first. Our manufacturers will have a large, satisfactory and successful home market. Having got that, they will be the first and foremost to break into the market of our competitors. That is what they want. That is what we want. It is one of the most important things behind the Bill. That is why I support it.
9.6 pm
Mr. Stan Thorne: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) is not with us. He probably needs some refreshment. He referred to making British Telecom better. He did not discuss—in Committee there was little discussion of this—the real quality of service provided by British Telecom. There were no major criticisms and few minor ones by the Government of BT as it stands. They did not show that there was anything wrong with BT. Some of the arguments by my right hon. and hon. Friends showed that a great deal was right with BT. What perturbed us on Second Reading and disturbs us now is whether, by creating the new organisation that will emerge if the Bill becomes an Act, we shall be able to say in ten years, for example, that we have a service that is as valuable as the present service. I fear that we shall be unable to report the same quality of service as is apparent from a close examination of BT.
The major discussions in Committee and during our debates yesterday and today, particularly by Conservative Members, have been about competition, the holy cow of the Tory party. There is nothing new about that. "Profitable enterprise" is a phrase commonly used by Conservative Members. Surplus value in manufacturing industry is produced by the workers and it is taken over by private shareholders. That is how they obtain their profits.
I was intrigued by the arguments in Committee by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). During his 22-minute contribution on Third Reading, he talked about abusing the position in the market place, implying that at present BT was abusing its position in telecommunications. At no time did he reveal that it is the multinational corporations, not public enterprise, that abuse their position in the market place today.
As a matter of fact the hon. Gentleman avoided a question that I and other hon. Members have asked. His argument tonight shows why he failed to reply to it. He
268
chastised his own Minister for ensuring in the Bill that, in the short run, there will be only one major competitor to British Telecom. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with that. He wants a few more competitors in the industry, but he failed to tell us how many more. What would he consider an ideal number to achieve the so-called fair competition to which Conservative Members referred ad nauseam in Committee?
Mr. Frank Hooley: In how many countries in Western Europe does the type of competition in telecommunications, about which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) babbles, exist?
Mr. Thorne: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has an attractive personality but he is politically naive. It has been my experience, and I am sure that of other Labour Members, that what we have seen and will continue to see in Britain, Germany, France, the United States, and in most major capitalist countries is a continuous process of capital moving into fewer and fewer hands. In some ways the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills wishes to turn the clock back. He wants to do away with this concentration of capital and see companies springing up in the industry. But the telecommunications business needs not £200,000 or £300,000, but £200 million or £300 million even to make an impact. The hon. Gentleman's argument is absurd. The notion of private profit is alien to the objects of the Labour party.
I do not suggest that profit is not necessary. Obviously, manufacturing industry needs to make a profit to pay for health services, housing, education and so on, but we do not need private profit, which will simply create more investment abroad in pursuit of further profits, speculation, larger mansions for the wealthy and more purchases of Rolls-Royces. The Labour party is not in that business. We are not interested in the development of privilege at the expense of a well-organised, efficient and progressive telecommunications service. For that reason, Opposition Members will vote against Third Reading.
9.13 pm
Mr. Gerry Neale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) on his assiduous attention to the Bill in Committee. He advertised his political leanings, if in no other way, by the colour of his shirt which he displayed in Committee. As the hon. Gentleman has referred often enough to competition, it is interesting that competition in the shirt market was discussed in Committee. I see that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. O'Brien) is in the Chamber. I hope that he will not take offence at the comment that it causes great disappointment on the Conservative Benches to see him here. We would have much preferred to see someone sitting on the Conservative Benches. Nevertheless, we welcome the hon. Gentleman's presence.
I wish to be associated with remarks made by various Conservative Members about the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) conducted their case clearly and with considerable courtesy. He allowed a number of interventions from Conservative Members. I understand that one of my hon. Friends earlier suggested that the right hon. Gentleman was not often present in Committee. I know that for a great deal of time he was a member of

269
another Committee. Despite that, he showed a rather daunting grasp of the Bill which Conservative Members had to counter.
Comments have been made about the limited awareness of the need for competition in BT's activities. It has been said that a certain lack of awareness has been displayed by my hon. Friends the Minister and the Under-Secretary. I have been involved in the industry for some time. I have discussed the implications of the legislation with my hon. Friends, who have displayed considerable will about increasing the amount of competition.
My hon. Friends have introduced a whole range of proposals which some have sought to suggest do not amount to much. However, in time they will mean that a great deal of competition will be brought into the market place. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) deployed extremely well his argument on the philosophy of competition, as he always does. However, he must consider the criticism that, while he may be strong and lucid about philosophical matters, there is a need to pay considerable attention to the practicalities involved. Such is the magnitude of BT, we cannot simply clear the slate and start all over again. That is impossible. Considerable problems are involved in transition in trying to arrive at a statutory framework that will make greater competition possible.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West mentioned accountability. It was obvious in Committee that we stood little chance of convincing him that his argument was wrong. Nevertheless, he should seek to understand our case, although whether he accepts it is for him to decide. The belief that drives us towards producing more competition is that the majority of people in Britain do not feel that they have a share in such organisations as BT. They do not look at their telephone instrument or the switchboard in an office and feel that they have a share in BT. Customers do not feel that BT is accountable to them, and nor do the taxpayers. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) may dispute this, but there is evidence among BT's employees that they do not think that BT is accountable to them either.
What drives Conservative Members on to introducing greater competition is the belief that if we make such organisations accountable to the customer, who will make a decision as a result of good sense, wisdom and in terms of his pocket, we will have a much more responsive organisation. Moreover, the employees will be much more aware of that necessary accountability. That is why my hon. Friends the Ministers and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have introduced the Bill and taken it through its various stages and changed it in the light of additional evidence. They have been willing to be flexible. Although I have some apprehensions about the Bill, I give it my full support. It will bring far greater choice to the market place for the consumer.
9.20 pm
Mr. John Grant: I preface my speech by agreeing with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), not for the first time, about the urgent need for a proper timetabling procedure on major Bills such as this.
Despite the long hours that have been spent in Committee and the many columns of Hansard that have been filled, I am unable to move on Third Reading from
270
the stance that I adopted on Second Reading. The Government made some concessions at the margins in Committee, not least because they had one or two troublesome Back Benchers. We all look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the scathing attack made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). His speech was a strong indictment, although I do not share his approach.
There have been some minor improvements. Clause 3 is an example. I am not sure that those improvements were cosmetic, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggested, but they were not much more than marginal.
Two major criticisms remain. The first is the uncertainty and continuing confusion that the Bill will needlessly cause in advance of a general election. The Government have admitted that they do not have a mandate for this sweeping ideologically-based measure. The Minister has taken every opportunity to deride the Social Democratic-Liberal alliance. I am both amused and flattered by his constant attention. Perhaps it shows that he recognises that there are no safe Conservative seats, especially in inner London. Perhaps even Conservative seats in the stockbroker belt, to which I understand he has now departed, are not safe.
The second major criticism is the haste with which the Bill was forced upon us and the consequent extraordinary muddle which dogged us in Committee. There is also the broken promise about the introduction of the licence and the problem about the mid-term intervention of the Littlechild report. There have been many problems of that type. That is not the proper way in which to introduce major legislation of this type. The Minister said that it is the most important legislation in this Session. What has happened is not the way in which to introduce such legislation, nor is it the right way in which to treat the House.
Everything that has happened since Second Reading serves only to underline the anxieties that I and other hon. Members have expressed. Everyone agrees that the licence was all-important. I shall quote from the latest BT report on the Bill. It says:
"although the main points of the BT licence have been published, it is clear that it will take some time and considerable discussion between BT and DoI to fill out the provisions within this, the first licence of its kind and a document that will last 25 years".
The licence is central to the Bill, crucial to the future of British Telecom and, consequently, to the future of the entire telecommunications industry, about which the Minister tells us he is so concerned, and crucial to the granting of subsequent licences arising from the Bill. Yet the House is denied the details of the licence. The hon. Member for Leominster suggested that the reason may be that British Telecom used delaying tactics. If that is true, where is the clout—the Minister likes that word and has used it many times—that one would expect from Ministers in his position? Why has he not sorted out the licence, and why has the House not had the details that he promised us?
Many other matters, including price restraint, access charges and cross-subsidisation, remain vague. Despite the price restraint formula, residential customers will probably find that their bills increase more rapidly than those of business customers. It seems that the Government still intend to get the regulatory body in place before the next general election—that will depend on the timing of the election, and, as the Minister has now sorted out his

271
seat, there is no need to delay further. If it is delayed, it would be reasonable to put the Bill on ice pending the outcome of the election. It would not be right to introduce Oftel now, because it is intended to operate in the competitive environment that the Government, at least in theory, expect to create. As full privatisation will occur only if the Government are returned, it would be sensible and proper that no part of the Bill be implemented ahead of that time.
The Bill was born out of an ideological insistence that privatisation is desirable in itself. The legislation was the showpiece. Ministers in the Department of Industry have told us that they propose to privatise the steel industry if they have the opportunity. With Mr. MacGregor at the National Coal Board, what is left of that industry may be turned over to private enterprise. The Minister is thinking hard, and I am sure that he will reach that conclusion. Under this dogma-ridden Government, anything is possible. The Bill, at such a volatile and uncertain political period, is a grave mistake. It can only add to industrial uncertainty at a time when British Telecom is, on its own admission, having to adapt at an unprecedented rate to changes, and needs, as the document states,
"a sensible period of time to digest these massive changes affecting its organisation and its staff."
The document refers to changes already in the pipeline and not to those to come.
The Government have said too little throughout the proceedings to allay the anxieties of British Telecom staff. The Minister described this as a liberating Bill and he no doubt sees himself as a great liberator, although most Ministers at the Department of Industry would qualify more as great liquidators, because that is what they have done for the past three and a half years.
The Bill is ill-constructed and ill-conceived. The practicalities, if not the principles, have certainly earned the severe criticism of Government Back Benchers, but the Social Democratic party believes that the principle is wrong. There is no convincing economic and industrial case for privatisation. I made it clear that if, after the general election, the Bill is to be fully implemented, it must be on the basis of the Conservative party's vote alone. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote against Third Reading tonight.
9.30 pm
Mr. Henderson: I have decided in the past few minutes to telescope my remarks considerably.
The Bill started as a good one, and has become a better one. As a charter for consumers it is a model for possible future measures. Not least important in the liberalisation measures—in addition to the reduction in waiting lists, which has happened in my constituency since the introduction of the British Telecommunications Act—is the scope for innovation and the opportunity for new jobs in new kinds of industry and exports.
The other important aspect of the Bill is the opportunity presented by the denationalisation provisions to free BT from public sector borrowing requirement restraints and to ensure that in future it will have enough capital to develop its projects in the interest of consumers without loading up the telephone accounts to pay for future investments.
The Bill will give an assurance of fair play through the mechanism of the Director General of Oftel. For these brief reasons, I hope that we shall move the Bill on to the other place, and that a general election will soon follow.
9.31 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the views of a large number of people in Scotland who voted for the Labour party in the general election, whose representatives had a good attendance record throughout the Committee, but, unfortunately, whose views have not been expressed in the debate tonight? I ask the Front Bench speakers to pay due regard to those views during the winding-up speeches.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I understand the hon. Member's disappointment and admire the way in which he has given a hint to his own Front Bench.
9.32 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) was an assiduous and effective member of the Committee. Like him, I regret that he has not been able to intervene in the Third Reading debate.
We have had a long and thorough consideration of a major Bill. About the only thing I agreed with the Minister about was that this is the most important Bill of the Session. That at least we can agree about, but the rest of his remarks fell on rather stony ground.
I thank the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) for their kind references to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and myself. Having listened to those comments, I was somewhat taken aback by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who perhaps overlooked the fact that I was also a member of the shipbuilding privatisation Committee and spent a little time helping my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. O'Brien), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, successfully contest a by-election. I can tell the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the House that I make no apology to the Labour party or the trade unions for being absent for that purpose. I look forward to the effective contributions that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will be making as the representative of that town.
It is rather sad that, after 70 years of public telephone operation, the Bill will proceed through Third Reading. The monopoly is coming to an end, and that is not only unnecessary but is likely to damage the community interest and individual interests. The record shows that it is unnecessary. What the Minister and some hon. Members have said about the record of public telephone operation is not borne out by a close examination.
The Bill is sad also because it poses a threat to services and jobs. It is damaging because its result will be the creation of a private monopoly. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, all that is happening is that a public monopoly is becoming, in effect, a private monopoly. It is regrettable, too, because it will result in unplanned, unco-ordinated investment and it will put an end to any overall national strategy for telecommunications, because there will be no guarantee on prices, as the last two price reviews, which penalised domestic consumers, showed. There will be no guarantee of choice; most people will have no choice. There will be no guarantee of improved or better services. There will he no guarantee of real or effective competition.

273
If we compare the Government's assertions with what has happened in the United States of America following liberalisation, we see that 80 per cent. of the telephone network is still owned and controlled by AT and T, the trunk lines are all controlled by AT and T, and all the local networks have one operator, with no competition and no choice. That is the reality of liberalisation in the United States, and that is likely to be the outcome in the United Kingdom also, following the passage of this Bill.
Against that background, I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) say that his party had supported earlier measures introduced by the Government, because their direct results were to increase costs to subscribers and the threat to services in rural areas. That is what is happening, and that is likely to continue to happen. It ill behoves the Liberal party, which professes support for rural areas, to say anything in support of this Government's telecommunications measures.
British Telecom and its predecessors have a good record. As a publicly owned corporation, BT has not only improved services, operated profitably and increased the available services, but it has done so with little increase in the number of employees. It was the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I think, who complained about productivity. The productivity record of British Telecom compares favourably with that of any private sector organisation. As a publicly owned corporation, it has been fully accountable to the community for its activities. The public have statutory rights through consumer watchdogs. I am not at all convinced that the Office of Telecommunications, which is almost certainly to be based in London, will be of any comfort to my constituents in Whitehaven, or to people in Scotland or south Wales, as a defender of their rights and of consumer choice.
At present the corporation is in the middle of a massive investment programme to expand and modernise the telecommunications network. That will be jeopardised, if not thrown into confusion. BT and its work force have accepted the need for change so as to provide the benefits of the latest services to their consumers and customers as a whole, not just—as is likely to be the case, because of the pressure of market forces and profits—to a select few.
When the Minister of State talked about real public ownership, I assume that he used the word "public" in the same context as Tories use it in terms of public schools. The public ownership that he has in mind is not evidenced by what has happened in the sale of other state assets under this Government. The emergence of private shareholders will almost certainly ensure that the corporation concentrates more and more on the profitable parts of its business, to the exclusion of real public interest.
The ending of BT's exclusive privilege will bring with it an end to the corporation's duty to provide a national service. The main adverse effects of privatisation will fall directly on residential consumers. There is already evidence in the pricing restructuring to support that argument. We face a threat to public accountability and almost certainly to the availability of information to the public.
Mr. Kenneth Baker indicated dissent.
Dr. Cunningham: The Minister of State contests that assertion. Let us examine the Government's record during
274
the passage of the Bill. The Minister promised the House a model licence. He failed to produce it. Littlechild was produced at short notice during the passage of the Bill. The Government have produced no articles of association or access fee details. Promises were made to the Committee and the House, but the Government failed to deliver. The Government also promised, but failed to deliver, a White Paper on cable.
Even during the passage of the Bill, the Minister's record in obtaining information for hon. Members has been abysmal. If that is the prospect we face when BT is in private control, it does not augur well for scrutiny, accountability and public control. We regard that prospect with some foreboding.
As for the arguments for competition, Mercury states publicly that it intends to cream the market. We all know that Mercury will not offer services in the remote rural areas and those inner city areas which are unlikely to produce much revenue or much chance of a quick profit. There will be very little real competition for most consumers. BT's finances will be placed in jeopardy. It will be left with the loss-making areas to support, and the old Tory approach to public services will be apparent. BT will be left with all the unattractive aspects of the business, and the private sector will move into those areas where money can be made, to the detriment of the national network of telecommunications and the public interest.
The Government's policy of selling off or privatisation has not even been a success. It has been a complete failure. Public assets have been ripped off not by the City of London but by the Government. In the 1960s and early 1970s, we used to complain about the unacceptable face of capitalism. This Government now represent the unacceptable face of capitalism. The Minister of State laughs, but the Government are interested in quick speculative gains. In the case of British Aerospace, the gain on the shares was 56·7 per cent. In the case of Cable and Wireless the gain was 150 per cent. The gain on Amersham International shares was 78·9 per cent., and on the shares of Associated British Ports 37·5 per cent. The sale of Britoil was a calamity. Britoil was a dead loss for the British taxpayer. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) laughs—
Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) cannot have it both ways.
Dr. Cunningham: Of course I can. Both ways, the taxpayer has lost. Offers have been either hopelessly oversubscribed or hopelessly undersubscribed. How can the taxpayer possibly gain from that? The speculative buyers of shares, not the taxpayer, have gained. That is also the likely outcome of the sale of British Telecom—a bigger sale than any yet proposed.
The Government have shied away from all the arguments about the threat to jobs. Despite their blandishments, however, behind their privatisation schemes—those that have already taken place as well as this one—there has been a substantial, continuing and in some cases massive programme of job losses. It has happened in British Aerospace and it is now happening in British Shipbuilders, another organisation being prepared for privatisation.
The Government have made no secret of their aim to reduce public sector jobs. The work force of British Airways has been reduced by 23,000, that of the National

275
Freight Company by almost 10,000, that of Rolls-Royce by 12,000 and there has been a fall of 8 per cent. at Cable and Wireless. The record shows that jobs will be lost in telecommunications as a result of the Bill. That was certainly the result of liberalisation in the United States.
We do not believe that the Government's dogma, their theories about market forces or the practice of this measure will benefit anyone. The effect will be the reverse. The telephone-using public will not benefit, nor will any national strategy for telecommunications emerge. The Bill will not only lead to higher prices: it will favour big business rather than the individual. The Government had no mandate to introduce the Bill or to carry through such a policy, and we do not believe that they will ever be given such a mandate.
9.46 pm
Mr. Butcher: Thanks have been expressed to various members of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) is not present, I record my thanks and, no doubt, the thanks of all members of the Committee for the great patience and stamina and the occasional sense of humour with which she chaired our proceedings. She certainly needed all those qualities. She needed stamina and patience because our proceedings contained every ingredient normally found in controversial memoirs. There was a clash of philosophy between the two major parties and there were clashes about the practicalities of the Bill. The views of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)—a root and branch Socialist and, as he reminded us, a clause 4 man—were tempered by those to the Left and to the Right of him. Occasionally, he was led by one to the right of him, but at all times he expressed his views with tenacity and occasional good humour.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West berated us today with the accusation that somehow we are moving away from the social and community obligations that existed when BT retained its exclusive privilege and that the Bill will weaken the rights of people in rural areas and the financial support of the 999 service and the emergency services generally. We did our best to reject and, I believe, succeeded in rejecting those accusations. In response to the comments of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, and especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), we brought forward an amendment to clause 3 in the form of new clause 1.
We believe that that synthesised new clause defines the public interest. It defines the priorities that the Secretary of State and the Director General must bear in mind when exercising their various powers. The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that he believed in a national service for all. The Government also believe in a national service for all. The Government believe that during the Committee stage they had finely tuned and trailed before Members the mechanism by which those loss-making services can receive cross-subsidy.
Although the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) have differed tactically, there is no difference in our objectives. As to the loss-making services, the Government should place the onus of proof on BT to show that it makes a loss in those areas and to show how that loss can be coupled with requirements for cross-revenues via the access charge.
276
The right hon. Member for Salford, West gave clear advice by saying that he did not recommend that the employees of BT should purchase shares. That was rather a dog-in-the-manger attitude. My belief is that the membership of the POEU will buy shares and will take advantage of this offer, which will be a good bargain. The shares will be in one of the most dynamic sectors of the economy and will be valued by those who work: in the industry. Underlying the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman was a lack of faith. He expressed great fears as to the future of the suppliers of telecommunications equipment, those who may supply core equipment and apparatus. He also expressed fears as to the generality of this service and fears for employees and consumers. His observations concerned the equipment suppliers and their future. I say with some pride that Plessey has expanded into the United States of America and introduced new technology in the space section, that Ferranti has diversified into telecommunications with GTE, that RACAL has moved into cellular radio systems, that BT, Plessey and GEC have signed important agreements with Mitel to exploit CMOS technology, that Mitel has opened a new factory in Newport and that there are smaller companies, whose entry into this market the Government welcome, which are developing or have developed products to take advantage of the liberalised market.
This would not have happened without the radical change in the market structure brought about by the original British Telecommunications Act 1981 and reinforced by new clause 1.
My respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is not diminished by his remarks this evening. I appreciate that he considers this matter as serious. The Government have tried to respond seriously to his observations in Committee. I bow to no one in my defence of basic freedoms in this country and the defence of those freedoms in commercial law. Having heard my hon. Friend speak on previous occasions may I say that I too am a fan of Thomas Hobbes. I have heard him quote "Leviathan" in the original language. I suspect that he would agree with me that, after Committee stage, the condition of man is a condition of war, of everyone against everyone. There have been times in Committee when that condition of war of everyone against everyone has not just been across the parties but between them.
The Government believe they have emerged with a better Bill. There has been reference to Professor Littlechild. Professor Littlechild was asked by the Department of Industry to make a report. His report: did not just float in during Committee stage. It was a deliberate act by Ministers in the Department of Industry who decided that they should put forward proposals for a regulatory mechanism by which the Government could check whether BT was earning super-normal profits, a mechanism by which its rate of return could be examined and by which the Government could temper the pattern of regulations through the introduction of competition.
I place on record my agreement with Littlechild's basic tenet that there is no substitute for competition. That is the most effective form of regulation. A strong statement has already been made on such basic matters as policy on the first instrument, resale, further liberalisation of maintenance and on the retail price index minus X formula. That is the way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has fought his corner and has become the blood brother of the

277
hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). They even moved each other's amendments. However, I must refer him to new clause 1, which surely meets many of the reservations expressed by both the hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends in Committee. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has brought new meaning to the expression "at the 11th hour". It used to denote a form of tension, but it now denotes a form of the most excruciating tedium. However, he stuck to his guns and paraded his 20th century mercantilism before the Committee and the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster deserves particular mention. I shall write to him on the point that he has raised and about the interim protection on call boxes. He, more than any other hon. Member, as our unofficial legal adviser in Committee, has done much to preserve rural interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) has looked after the Scottish aspect, even taking us into the fine detail of Scots, rather than Scottish, law. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), who moves a pretty deft amendment himself, has also helped us considerably in our deliberations.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) looked back over 70 years and indeed that phenomenon has characterised many of the contributions made by him and his hon. Friends. When the Bill is enacted, it will take us through the 1980s and into the 21st century. We believe that it will do so in the interests of BT, of consumers, of those who work for BT, and in the interests of those who will create additional jobs in the new markets that are now coming to the fore. However, it was essential that we should end that exclusive privilege. That was not the way to move into new trends and into the internationally competitive world of telecommunications.
I await with interest the casting of votes by SDP and Liberal Members in the Division. Hon. Members should note that in the Division at 5.30 pm on cable policy, 11 Liberal Members voted with the Government, while five Social Democrat Members conspicuously abstained. However, one Social Democrat, the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) apparently found his way by mistake into the Opposition Lobby.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West was absolutely right. This subject will be an election issue. It will divide the House—such issues always have. However, I suspect that it will not divide the country in equal proportion and that the vast majority of our people will support the measure. They will look forward to price increases at less than the rate of inflation for the next five years. They will look forward to receiving the protection of the Director General of Fair Trading. They will have their protection with teeth. They will look forward to the new developments in telecommunications and to the new job opportunities that will be made possible by the Bill.
The Bill takes us into the year 2000. It will be good for jobs, good for the equipment suppliers, and will, above all, be good for the consumers of telecommunication services in the United Kingdom.
9.59 pm
Mr. Golding: That was one of the worst speeches that we have ever heard. The incompetence of the Under-Secretary of State in sitting down early has been equaled
278
only by the incompetence of the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State in Committee. This Bill is bad for the consumer, is disastrous for British manufacturing industry and—
It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
Mr. Michael Cocks(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition are not responsible for the incompetence of the Government Whips. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was still speaking when the clock reached 10 o'clock. I therefore submit that the Bill has been talked out.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. I am required by the terms of the guillotine motion to put the Question at 10 o'clock, and that is what I have done.
The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 241.

Division No. 107]

[10 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

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

Alexander, Richard

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Ancram, Michael

Clegg, Sir Walter

Arnold, Tom

Cockeram, Eric

Aspinwall, Jack

Colvin, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Cope, John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Corrie, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Costain, Sir Albert

Banks, Robert

Critchley, Julian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Crouch, David

Bendall, Vivian

Dickens, Geoffrey

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Dorrell, Stephen

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Berry, Hon Anthony

Dover, Denshore

Best, Keith

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Durant, Tony

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Dykes, Hugh

Blackburn, John

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Blaker, Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Body, Richard

Eyre, Reginald

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Bowden, Andrew

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Farr, John

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fell, Sir Anthony

Bright, Graham

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Brinton, Tim

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Brooke, Hon Peter

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

Brotherton, Michael

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Brown, Michael(Bhgg & Sc'n)

Forman, Nigel

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fox, Marcus

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Fry, Peter

Buck, Antony

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Budgen, Nick

Gardner, Sir Edward

Burden, Sir Frederick

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Butcher, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Goodlad, Alastair

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Gorst, John

Chapman, Sydney

Gow, Ian

Churchill, W. S.

Gower, Sir Raymond

279

Grant, Sir Anthony

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Miscampbell, Norman

Greenway, Harry

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Grieve, Percy

Moate, Roger

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

Monro, Sir Hector

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Montgomery, Fergus

Grist, Ian

Moore, John

Grylls, Michael

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hamilton, Hon A.

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mudd, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Murphy, Christopher

Hannam,John

Myles, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Neale, Gerrard

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Needham, Richard

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Nelson, Anthony

Hawksley, Warren

Neubert, Michael

Hayhoe, Barney

Newton, Tony

Henderson, Barry

Normanton, Tom

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Onslow, Cranley

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Hill, James

Osborn, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Hooson, Tom

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Hordern, Peter

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Patten, John (Oxford)

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

Pattie, Geoffrey

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pawsey, James

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Percival, Sir Ian

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

Pink, R. Bonner

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Pollock, Alexander

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Porter, Barry

Jessel, Toby

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Proctor, K. Harvey

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rathbone, Tim

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Kimball, Sir Marcus

Renton, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rhodes James, Robert

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Knight, Mrs Jill

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Knox, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lang, Ian

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Latham, Michael

Rossi, Hugh

Lee, John

Rost, Peter

Le Marchant, Spencer

Royle, Sir Anthony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W loo)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Loveridge, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Luce, Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lyell, Nicholas

Silvester, Fred

Macfarlane, Neil

Sims, Roger

MacGregor, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Speed, Keith

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Speller, Tony

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

Spence, John

McQuarrie, Albert

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Madel, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Major, John

Sproat, Iain

Marland, Paul

Squire, Robin

Marlow, Antony

Stainton, Keith

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Stanley, John

Mates, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Stevens, Martin

Mawby, Ray

Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stokes, John

Mayhew, Patrick

Stradling Thomas, J.

Mellor, David

Tapsell, Peter

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Temple-Morris, Peter

280

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Walters, Dennis

Thompson, Donald

Ward, John

Thome, Neil (Ilford South)

Watson, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Wells, Bowen

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Wheeler, John

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Whitney, Raymond

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Wickenden, Keith

Viggers, Peter

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Waddington, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Waldegrave, Hon William

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Walker, B. (Perth)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wall, Sir Patrick

Mr. Carol Mather and

Waller, Gary

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Adams, Allen

Eadie, Alex

Allaun, Frank

Eastham, Ken

Alton, David

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

Anderson, Donald

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

English, Michael

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Atkinson, U.(H'gey,)

Evans, John (Newton)

Bagier, Gordon A.T.

Faulds, Andrew

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Field, Frank

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Beith, A. J.

Ford, Ben

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Forrester, John

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

Foster, Derek

Bidwell, Sydney

Foulkes, George

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Bradley, Tom

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

George, Bruce

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ginsburg, David

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

Golding, John

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

Gourlay, Harry

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Graham, Ted

Buchan, Norman

Grant, John (Islington C)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Campbell, Ian

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

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hardy, Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Cant, R. B.

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Carmichael, Neil

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Haynes, Frank

Cartwright, John

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Heffer, Eric S.

Clarke.Thomas(C'b'dgre, A'rie)

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

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

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

Coleman, Donald

Home Robertson, John

Conlan, Bernard

Homewood, William

Cook, Robin F.

Hooley, Frank

Cowans, Harry

Horam, John

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

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Crawshaw, Richard

Howells, Geraint

Crowther, Stan

Hoyle, Douglas

Cryer, Bob

Huckfield, Les

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

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

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Dalyell, Tarn

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Davidson, Arthur

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

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

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Deakins, Eric

John, Brynmor

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Dewar, Donald

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Dixon, Donald

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Dobson, Frank

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Dormand, Jack

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Douglas, Dick

Kerr, Russell

Dubs, Alfred

Kilfedder, James A.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Dunnett, Jack

Lambie, David

281

Lamond, James

Rooker, J. W.

Leadbitter, Ted

Roper, John

Leighton, Ronald

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Litherland, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Sandelson, Neville

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Sever, John

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Sheerman, Barry

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McCartney, Hugh

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

McElhone, Mrs Helen

Silverman, Julius

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Skinner, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

McKelvey, William

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Snape, Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Soley, Clive

McTaggart, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

McWilliam, John

Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

Magee, Bryan

Spriggs, Leslie

Marks, Kenneth

Stallard, A. W.

Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

Stoddart, David

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Stott, Roger

Maynard, Miss Joan

Strang, Gavin

Meacher, Michael

Straw, Jack

Mikardo, Ian

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Thome, Stan (Preston South)

Morton, George

Tinn, James

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Torney, Tom

Newens, Stanley

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wainwrlght, E.(Dearne V)

O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

O'Halloran, Michael

Warden, Gareth

O'Neill, Martin

Weetch, Ken

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wellbeloved, James

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Welsh, Michael

Paisley, Rev Ian

White, Frank R.

Palmer, Arthur

White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

Park, George

Whitlock, William

Parker, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Parry, Robert

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Pavitt, Laurie

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

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)

Penhaligon, David

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Pitt, William Henry

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

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Prescott, John

Winnick, David

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Woodall, Alec

Race, Reg

Woolmer, Kenneth

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Richardson, Jo

Young, David (Bolton E)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Mr. Austin Mitchell.

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

Housing Benefits
10.13 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Housing Benefits) (Requirements and Resources) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
Hon. Members may be relieved to know that this is the last batch of supplementary benefit amendments consequential on the introduction of housing benefit—[Interruption]—well, the last batch of positive amendments; at least, I hope it is. It has undoubtedly been a major task to remove housing requirements from the complex web of supplementary benefit regulations and then to make the necessary adjustments to take account of the housing benefit changes. This final set comprises the usual mixture of technical adjustments and more significant provisions. I intend to confine my speech initially to the latter but, of course, if any hon. Member wishes to raise questions about the more technical provisions or on other points arising from the regulations, I shall do my best to answer them later in the debate.
The first amendment of significance is regulation 2(5) 1(b) in which we have provided for an addition to housing benefit supplement. This arises out of a point which I believe was first picked up by the Disability Alliance. As hon. Members know, the housing benefit supplement protects those who would otherwise be brought below supplementary benefit level after paying that part of their rent and rates not rebated by the local authority. Under housing benefit, supplementary benefit recipients who must pay an inescapable charge for amenities such as heating, have the amount of their charge above a standard amount included in their rebate. The effect is that no supplementary benefit claimant in this position is obliged to find any more than, for example in the case of heating, £5·60 a week from his own resources.
This amendment puts the housing benefit supplement recipient in exactly the same position. Without the amendment contained in the regulations, the income of the person in question could be reduced below supplementary benefit levels. We are keen to avoid that. We do not think that many people could be affected adversely, but there may be about 5,000 of them and they could lose considerable sums of up to £5 or more a week. This regulation is intended to prevent that from happening. Local authorities have been warned already about the proposed changes and asked to be ready to correct the deficiency if and when the regulation is approved.
Next, we have made a number of changes to the provisions for non-dependant deductions—the deductions to be made in the householder's assessment because of the presence of other adults in his household. In regulation 2(6)(b) we have provided for no non-dependant deduction to be made from supplementary benefit housing requirements where the claimant is already having a deduction made in the calculation of his housing benefit. That applies particularly to those who are buying a share in the equity of their home and paying rent on the balance. Their housing costs will be met by a combination of housing benefit and supplementary benefit. It would clearly be wrong in such a case to make two non-dependant deductions. In regulation 2(6)(b) we have

283
provided for no non-dependant deduction to be made where the non-dependant is a full-time student, supported wholly or partly by the claimant or his partner.
Regulation 2(6) (c) makes perhaps the most important change. The regulations provide currently that a full deduction should be made—£4£70 per week—unless the non-dependant is in receipt of supplementary benefit, of pensionable age, or aged under 21. This would mean that some unemployed or sick people whose incomes were a little above supplementary benefit levels only could face difficulties in making their contribution to housing costs. We have therefore provided that the deduction in such cases should be reduced to £2.20 a week, provided that the non-dependant has been in receipt of certain benefits related to sickness or unemployment for at least 13 weeks and has income comprising one or more of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity allowance, injury benefit or child benefit only. The cost of this concession, together with the parallel concession in the Housing Benefits (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1983 will be about £2 million a year.
The other main element to note in the regulations is perhaps the transitional protection they provide for those few claimants whose benefit would otherwise be reduced by the provisions of these and the earlier sets of amendment regulations. One in particular is worth special mention because it has been the subject of discussion in the House on several occasions.
Hon. Members will recall that, from 4 April, 16 and 17-year-olds will not be eligible for the non-householder housing contribution. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security undertook to make transitional arrangements for young people under the age of 18 who are receiving supplementary benefit when the change comes into effect. This has been done at regulation 2(7) (b). Non-householder claimants aged 16 or 17 in receipt of benefit in the week commencing 28 March—that is to say, the week commencing yesterday—will continue to receive the non-householder contribution for as long as they remain in receipt of supplementary benefit to non-householders.
Mr. David Alton: The Minister talked about transitional arrangements. Will he say something about local authorities that cannot implement the new unified housing benefit simply because the information has not been provided by the DHSS to the local authorities? In authorities such as mine, on 4 April, when stage 2 is to be implemented, some 7,000 people will be without unified housing benefit purely because the information has not been made available and transitional arrangements have not been made.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have recently circularised local authorities and our offices about providing for the arrangements to continue so that the existing payments will go on to cover the period until the areas where the transition has fallen behind have caught up. Undoubtedly, there are problems in some places. There are not that many, but enough to have made it necessary for us to issue guidance in the past month.
From that brief summary, the House will realise that the main thrust of the regulations is to tidy up and ease the transition to housing benefit. Despite the differences of opinion about the scheme as a whole and particular aspects
284
of it, I hope and believe that there will be no difference of opinion on the need to do everything possible now to complete the change successfully.
10.21 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: The Under-Secretary of State has beer optimistic enough to say that these are the last amending regulations on this subject that the House will have to consider. How he expects the local authorities to cope with the flood of regulations and circulars that his Department has been sending out or how he expects claimants to understand their entitlements, I fail to understand.
First, I draw the attention of the House to regulation 2(7)(a), which amends regulation 23(1) of the requirements regulations. It corcerns the non-householder's contribution and effects a further cut. The regulation now provides that a non-householder's contribution to household expenses may be assessed at more than £3·10 up to a maximum of £6·55 in the circumstances defined in sub-paragraph (b). The effect of the amendment is to remove that provision and to stipulate that the non-householder's contribution shall always be assessed at £3·10. Although the transitional provision in the new paragraph 23(3)(b) affords some protection to those currently receiving the higher rate, some claimants in future will receive less as a result of the amendment than they would have otherwise. Does the Under-Secretary have any estimate of how many families will lose as a result of that?
Surely regulation 23(1)(b) is fair as it stands. As we all know, in some circumstances it is reasonable to expect a larger contribution to household expenses. A non-householder may be a cause of extra costs—for example, a disabled teenager or a daughter who becomes pregnant. The effect of the amendment, as the Under-Secretary must know, is likely to be hardship for some families on low incomes.
The remainder of regulation 2(7)(b) inserts a transitional provision protecting 16 and 17-year-olds who are currently benefiting from the non-householder's contribution, and would otherwise lose it. The House will recall that from 1 April new supplementary benefit claimants aged 16 to 17 will not be eligible for non-householder housing addition. That means that teenagers whose parents are claiming unemployment benefit, people who have been out of work for less than a year and parents on low wages will lose £3·10 a week to save the Treasury about £29 million over the next two years. Can the Under-Secretary of State tell us how many of these teenagers and their families will lose as a result of the change?
Regulation 2(3) makes two minor amendments to regulation 12. Those amendments are objectionable in themselves, but they raise the more general issue of heating charges. SHAC, the Shelter Housing Aid Centre, claims that there is still a wide measure of confusion among local authorities about the provision for rebating heating and other fuel charges above the maximum limits in certificated cases. In fact, DHSS local offices appear to be giving conflicting advice to local authorities both about the extent to which these regulations will apply and the extent to which local authority decisions will affect claimants' entitlement to supplementary benefit heating additions. In general, claimants are wholly confused by the procedure.

285
Is the Minister aware that in one current SHAC case a London tenant has spent considerable time trying to work out what the appropriate rebate should be in his case but has failed to receive any response from his local authority to correspondence on the subject over the past three months. It is said that Newham council decided that the whole business of partial fuel charges was too much trouble. Many people in Newham are having a deduction of £5·60 made even though their fixed charge represents only background heating. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of that? Can he confirm it and, if so, will he promise to investigate? That is only one example of the problems arising out of heating charges.
Regulation 2(5) relates to housing benefit supplement. Once again the amendment is beneficial, but there are considerable problems with housing benefit supplement, as the Under-Secretary of State must know. Already a number of major administrative problems are becoming apparent which will result in many poor people losing out on their entitlement. This is particularly serious because of the absence of any procedure for backdating entitlements to housing benefit supplement.
The administrative problems that have been identified by SHAC are as follows. First, DHSS offices are failing to write the excess income figure on rebate and allowance application forms issued to those people lifted off supplementary benefit in April of this year. Secondly, DHSS offices are refusing to let local authorities have a list of those claimants lifted off supplementary benefit to enable them to check whether all those who are entitled to claim rebate or allowance under the new arrangements have done so. Thirdly, claimants are receiving inadequate information and advice on filling in local authority rebate and allowance application forms, as a result of which some forms are not being returned to the local authority.
Fourthly, circular HB 82(2) inadequately explains the procedures for making a double non-dependant deduction in housing benefit supplment cases. Paragraph 14(7) of the circular has been interpreted in different ways by different authorities and no other advice has been provided to local authorities by the DHSS. As a result, some authorities have recently had to revise computer programmes because they were unaware of the correct procedure to follow. Many other authorities may still be unaware of the problem and, as a result, there may be incorrect assessments of housing benefit entitlements.
Fifthly, there is inadequate advice to local authorities for identifying entitlement to housing benefit supplement among existing rebate and allowance applicants and new applicants who go first to the local authority.
The advice contained in circular HB83(3) is helpful only to pensioner applicants. It was extremely late in being issued to authorities, most of which had not received it before the end of February. As various case studies prepared by SHAC show, failure to identify entitlement to housing benefit supplement can lead to serious losses—for example, £5 a week or more for some pensioner couples with income of about £60 a week.
Regulation 2(6) makes a number of amendments to regulation 22 of the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980 relating to deductions for non-dependants. By and large, the amendments are beneficial, but attention must be drawn yet again to the losses that will occur because of changes in the treatment
286
of non-dependant deductions. When the Minister wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 16 December 1982, annex B gave a breakdown of losses resulting from the changes.
But, because of double counting, it was not possible to derive a cumulative total for the number of losses. I must therefore press the Minister to say how many people will lose because of the changes in the treatment of non-dependant deductions, and what the average loss will be.
Since the last edition of the yellow book, there have been four sets of amending regulations. To understand these regulations, we must first undertake a complicated scissors and paste job to establish exactly what is being amended. It would be almost impossible for an ordinary claimant to establish from the regulations his entitlement. I hope that the Minister, in the interests of clarity, will introduce consolidated regulations so that we can all understand them.
There will be delays in implementing the regulations. It is abundantly clear that some local authorities cannot implement the new scheme in time. On 2 March the Department issued a circular, HB83(4), making contingency plans for late implementation. The Housing Benefits (Transitional) Amendment Regulations 1983, which were laid on Friday, provide the necessary legal powers. I suspect that there will be an opportunity for a fuller debate on that matter at a later date. In the meantime, the Minister must give details of the extent of the problem. He must come clean with the House and tell us just how badly the scheme is going wrong. The problems are much greater than either he or his hon. Friends pretend.
The problems arise in both certificated and standard cases. Our impression is that it will be widespread in the case of the former, and rather less so for the latter. Some certificated cases were included in the partial start last November, but only those who were local authority tenants and who had no non-dependants living with them. All other certificated cases now come under the scheme. Problems may have arisen, first, because the DHSS local offices had not passed over all the certificates in time, or, secondly, because the local authority, even though it had received all the certificates, had not been able to process all the cases in time.
In the latter case, the main cause of the problem has been the detailed form that has been sent to private tenants. It is a four-page form which is sent by the DHSS local office to the private tenant but which has to be returned to the local authority with some proof of rent payments and the last notice of rent increase from the landlord. It goes into everything under the sun and, by report, has produced an abysmal response. Many forms have not been returned because tenants are confused, and many that have been returned are incomplete. It has been described as one of the major blunders of the scheme.
Any delay in standard cases is attributable to the local authority, not the DHSS. The circular refers to computer problems, one cause of which is the misunderstanding of the procedures for making a double non-dependant deduction in housing benefit supplement cases due to the inadequate explanation in circular 82(2). That has meant that many authorities have had to revise their computer programmes.
I must press the Minister for separate answers to the following questions. First, in how many local authority areas will there be late implementation in certificated cases

287
because the DHSS local office has failed to send out certificates in good time? Secondly, in how many local authority areas will there be late implementation in certificated cases for other reasons? Thirdly, in how many local authority areas will there be late implementation in standard cases?
The Minister should be able to give estimates based on the progress reports from local offices. The House is entitled to ask why the Government have insisted on rushing through the new scheme when it has been clear that many local authorities would not be able to implement it in time. What are the reasons for the haste? It is clear from the transitional arrangements for the areas of late implementation that some claimants will not have the benefit adjusted immediately to take account of any rate or rent rise in April. They will get backdated benefit later, but in the meantime they may suffer hardship. It is also clear that some claimants who suffer taper losses or lose entitlement to benefit completely will be faced with a demand to pay back overpaid benefit. It is clear from the circular that no recovery action will be taken in relation to overpayments in certificated cases when they are not the claimant's fault. Why, then, should standard cases be treated any differently?
Delays in implementation represent only part of the picture of confusion. Organisations such as SHAC which are in touch with many local authorities throughout the country report that they are still receiving inquiries about the new scheme, just a few days before implementation. The story is generally one of an over-complicated scheme in the first instance that is being implemented in too much of a rush which, in turn, inevitably gives rise to last-minute contingency plans when things go wrong.
I shall now deal with losers in relation to the Budget extension of mortgage interest relief. The Red Book shows that the cost of the increase in the mortgage interest relief limit is forecast to be £50 million in 1983–84 and £60 million in a full year. For that money, the 2·3 million losers from taper changes could have been largely avoided. Will the Minister say exactly what it would would cost to eliminate all taper losses? Will he confirm that the £60 million of mortgage relief would almost cover that?
Is it not true that many authorities are still very confused about the implementation of the review procedure?
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Totally.
Mr. Foster: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. In one SHAC case, an authority has failed to respond to all requests by a certificated claimant within the partial start for a review of his housing benefit entitlement.
The publicity arranged by the Department for the introduction of the scheme has been severely criticised by local authorities and other housing organisations. In distinct contrast, there has been extensive publicity of the new mortgage arrangements. The national coverage of the new housing benefits scheme, which affects one in three of the population, has been minimal. This document is the Department's effort to inform claimants of their entitlements under the new scheme, and we could describe it—not unkindly—as Comic Cuts without the laughs. It is much less informative than the previous document, and is an everyday story of city folk with people who have names such as Margaret and Winston. But it provides little
288
information to the claimants. We are entitled to ask the Under-Secretary of State, who was responsible for producing the leaflet? While his Department struggles with that, the much-maligned Islington council has managed to produce much more comprehensive information in seven languages.
This is a very complex scheme that was brought in too hastily, so that amending regulations are arriving only slightly more slowly that applications from tenants for benefit.
10.42 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We must put the matter of housing regulations in context. The Government's justification for introducing the new housing benefit scheme was that it would be a major simplification of the system. However, if one considers the regulations or the explanatory memorandum supplied to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, no one could accept that it was a simplification. Almost all local authorities are finding the regulations very complicated, and even the Government's officials managed to make two substantial mistakes in this instrument which led to the withdrawal of the original order and the laying of a new one. That is a further illustration that the entire matter is complicated and difficult to follow. Any hope that it would be a major simplification has not been fulfilled.
During the past two or three months, every time that I have met a group of pensioners, I have been inundated with questions about how the scheme will affect them. When I write to the local benefit office, I receive a reply that has been worked out with much care and sympathy, but it does not make the position clear to those people or to me. They still believe that they have lost out in some way, and in many instances they have lost out in cash terms. They have not only lost money but have suffered confusion and disbelief. That is still the position, although the scheme is supposed to be introduced completely on 4 April. Almost all of those with low incomes wish to know exactly how much money they have to spend and do not wish to run the risk of getting into debt. Most of my elderly constituents are adamant that they have never owed anyone a penny, and they do not intend to do so. If they do not know how much they will have to pay when the scheme comes into operation, they make estimates, and that causes hardship because they do not know how much money to put aside for that purpose. The Government should make the position clear to those people as soon as possible.
Will the Minister tell us how many people will not be brought into the scheme from the starting date in April? How soon after that will they be brought in? Will he give a guarantee that if they have been given too much benefit, in that the losses have not been taken away from them, they will not be asked to repay that money? Clearly it is not their fault. My understanding is that the certificated cases will not be asked to repay the money, but it is surely just as important that non-certificated cases, if they lose out as a result of the Government's tampering with the tapers, should not be asked to make any repayments.
Can the Minister now give us an up-to-date figure of the number of people who will lose? We were told earlier that there were various estimates, and that about 2·3 million people would be involved. Many people felt that that was only a guess. We should now be told the number of people who will lose. What happens to a person who

289
is in a block of flats or perhaps a house which is heated by the local authority and the heating system fails for a week or a fortnight? Will that person get a refund from the housing department to pay for any alternative heating that he has to use, or does he have to apply for supplementary benefit for the heating during that period?
I hope that the Minister will tell us the position about appeals tribunals or local authority appeals. I have a constituent who was very aggrieved about the loss of the rent-free weeks. She attempted to persuade the ombudsman that he should look at the issue. Eventually I persuaded the local authority to allow her to apply to the appeals tribunal. It is arguable whether the appeals tribunal will have jurisdiction over the rent-free weeks, but the local authority told me that it did not intend the matter to go to an appeals tribunal. In other words, the local authority chooses which cases go to an appeals tribunal. How can an appeals body be independent if the local authority decides which cases can be submitted—in other words, which it thinks can be justified? I hope that the Minister will assure us that, in his view, it is not for the local authority to decide whether an appeal should be heard, and that the appeal body should hear the case and make up its own mind.
I hope that the Minister will say something about the interrelationship between the cohabitation rules of supplementary benefit and the appeals procedure over decisions by local authorities to go on paying housing benefits to families. I know of one instance where an individual was accused of cohabiting and the benefit was removed. The people in the case then applied for housing benefit and were told, "You will not qualify for it because you should qualify for supplementary benefit. If you don't qualify for supplementary benefit, you can't qualify for housing benefit", although it was clear that their income was sufficiently low, if their supplementary benefit was removed, for them to qualify at least for housing benefit.
We predicted in Standing Committee that there would be problems here, and I wonder whether the Minister has any evidence on whether that is an isolated case in Greater Manchester—not Stockport—or whether there have been considerable problems in this respect.
Finally, I wonder whether the Government have thought any further about the rent-free weeks, which clearly have caused more difficulty than anything else. This in not a problem to be solved piecemeal by local authorities. It should be solved by clear Government direction. Many people have told me that the rent-free weeks applied only when the scheme was introduced and that the problem is not a continuing one. That is nonsense. It applies to anyone who comes into the scheme for any reason. Depending on the date when a person joins the scheme, he may gain or lose as a result of the rent-free weeks.
This is a major anomaly and a major cause of confusion, and it is time that the Government brought in a regulation to make it clear that local authorities and the Government should provide a common system so that some people do not lose money while others gain. The regulations are absurd. They were supposed to simplify the system, but in fact the already complicated supplementary benefit regulations have become even more complicated.
10.52 pm
Mr. David Alton: Like the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I had great reservations about these regulations when they were laid before the House. When we discussed them on 26 July last year—on a hot summer night—both the hon. Member for Stockport, North and I voiced our feelings about them, but, unlike me, the hon. Member had the benefit of serving on the Standing Committee.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) have both expressed accurately and eloquently the main reservations that many hon. Members had last year, and still have, about the operation of the unified housing benefit. The hon. Member for Stockport, North referred to the rent-free weeks. I have received representations from Liberal councillors in Chelmsford about that matter which they say works to the disadvantage of tenants in their area. I have also heard from people elsewhere about some of the effects of the regulations in their own communities, and in particular of the effects of the rent-free weeks. The hon. Member for Stockport, North was right to highlight that issue as one of major concern to many people.
I should like the Under-Secretary to clarify the position of private tenants. I raised this subject with the Minister for Social Security, who replied to our debate on this subject last July. The Minister kindly answered a number of questions during the course of that debate. I would not have relished his role on that evening, and he dealt very fairly with the hon. Members who intervened in his speech, but the position is still not clear, although the scheme will be implemented on 4 April.
What will be the position of private tenants whose rent falls into arrears because of non-payment by local authorities and who might later on be subject to eviction? I fear that if a 12-week period elapses whilst people are in arrears—this is especially relevant because many local authorities will not be able to implement the scheme on 4 April—private tenants may find their landlord taking them to court and possibly trying to have them evicted from their homes. Landlords sometimes try to do that, and these regulations will make it easier for them to do it. I would welcome a reply from the Under-Secretary on that point.
I too have great reservations about the appeals tribunals. The hon. Member for Stockport, North and I both voiced objections last July. How many people will lose out as a result of the enforcement of the regulations? Shelter state that some 2 million people will probably be 75p a week worse off. Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether that figure is correct? Much of that money may be transferred to other groups such as the pensioners who will be better off as a result of these regulations, but is it true that 2 million of the lowest wage earners in the country will be 75p a week worse off? No hon. Member would go out of his way to reinforce poverty, and if that could be among the results of these regulations the Government should think again.
I think that the Minister will agree that when the proposals were first introduced there was some doubt as to whether local authorities would be able to comply with the deadlines imposed by the Government. Local authority associations and many local councillors expressed reservations about their ability to implement the proposals.

291
When I asked the Minister for Social Security last July whether it would be possible to implement the first stage of the scheme by November, he replied:
"We have undertaken to meet all their additional costs"—
costs incurred by the local authorities—
"in implementing the scheme, including the additional costs that may be incurred by training staff. The local authorities are perfectly happy with that."
When I asked whether the local authorities were happy to implement the proposals by November, he replied:
"Yes, Sir. I am talking not about the main scheme, where there may be complications, but about the simple case in which we certify that a tenant is on supplementary benefit."—[Official Report, 26 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 763–4.]
I understand from the local authorities that that was true. Stage 1 of the proposals was implemented without great difficulty because all those involved were local authority tenants, so there was no great difficulty in transferring their accounts to local authority computers and paying their rents directly.
The second batch of people coming into the scheme, however, are private sector tenants who previously received rent or rate allowances or rebates. In Liverpool, about 14,000 people are involved. I contacted officials of Liverpool city council today to discover what would be the effect on those tenants. This is what was between the lines of the Minister's comments last July. Although those 14,000 claimants are currently receiving benefit from the DHSS, 7,000 of them will not receive their housing benefit from 4 April—in just six days' time—because the information has not been given to the local authority by the DHSS. That is not entirely the Department's fault as it had far too limited a period in which to implement the proposals.
Forms were sent out to all the people then on supplementary benefit and they were asked to return them to the local authority. Only 7,000 have so far done so. Again, this means that probably the most disadvantaged groups, some of whom will be illiterate and unable to fill in the forms at all, will receive no housing benefit at all from 4 April, so they will be about £10 per week worse off. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that figure. According to my local authority, those 7,000 claimants will on average be between £7·50 and £8·50 per week worse off and it will be June or July before they are on the computer and in receipt of the benefit. What transitional arrangements are the Government making to help those people?
Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not just a problem for Liverpool but is paralleled throughout the country? In Newcastle, for instance, there are serious worries about what will happen after 4 April. The problems that my hon. Friend describes are widespread. This is due not only to the Government, although they bear a large share of the responsibility, but to the simple fact that local authority housing departments are often not so familiar as the social security authorities with assessing problems of this kind and getting the questions answered and the benefits computed.
Mr. Alton: I was about to give other examples as I thought that I heard a Conservative Member suggest that the problem might be confined to Liverpool. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the same applies in Newcastle. Officials in Leeds told me today that they expect about 5,000 cases not to have been processed by 4 April, so those
292
tenants, too, will be £8·50 to £10 per week worse off. In Maidstone, in the south of England, some tenants—the exact number is not known—will not be able to receive their benefits simply because they have not been able to comply with the guidelines laid down last July. Six or seven months ago, in the debate, many of us argued that this was a sleight of hand and part of the insidious process to try to erode the welfare state.
For example, at about that time there was a 5 per cent. cut in unemployment benefit, and the Think Tank's report had just been mooted. There has also been a decision to wipe out rent and rate rebates and rent allowances and to replace them by unified housing benefit. All those decisions should be seen in the same context, together with the cuts in local government expenditure. Those cuts have led social services departments and area health authorities, such as my own, to cut back. That could be seen as part of a pattern which many hon. Members are worried about.
In addition, the rights of local authorities were being interfered with. They were not properly consulted, As, once again, local authorities were not properly consulted and were not taken into the Government's confidence, a half-baked scheme has been accepted by the House, although it is not now capable of implementation.
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I have listened to many of the hon. Gentleman's points, but they are really a gloss on what has happened. He is not right to say that there were not the fullest consultations with local authorities. Indeed, the Government's original intention, as the House knows, was to bring the full scheme into operation last November. However, because the local authorities felt that they could not bring the whole scheme into operation in November, we decided to bring the second part of the scheme into operation in April. It was at their request. They assured us that by then they would be ready to implement the whole scheme.
There were reservations that last November was too soon for the first part of the scheme, but in the event we were proved right and the Jeremiahs were proved wrong. Obviously there will be some teething troubles when people are not returning the forms sent to them, and we shall make arrangements to ensure that those people do not lose financially. However, the hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the situation in the way that he has done.
Mr. Alton: I was trying not to exaggerate the situation but to put it in perspective. Earlier, I mentioned that I accepted what the Minister had said in the debate on 26 July 1982. He gave an assurance that the local authority element of the scheme would be implemented, and it was. However, perhaps the Opposition did not sufficiently press the Minister on the effects of the second stage of the scheme. That second stage will be implemented on 4 April, and many of us have grave reservations about that. It will not be possible for local authorities to implement it, and most local authorities told the Minister and the Government at the time that they were unhappy with the scheme anyway. The Association of Local Authorities was opposed to it at the time.
However, the Government have often ridden roughshod over local authorities and their rights. They did so in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, and in the Housing Act. They took away the right to determine whether or not a local authority should be able to sell council houses to sitting tenants. Now they are, in a sense,

293
doing it again. There is a breakdown in co-operation between central and local government, and that has manifested itself in many areas of legislation. It is not just this Minister who is involved. It is part of a pattern that can be seen over the past three and a half years.
I reiterate a point that I made last July. The average tenant finds it impossible to understand how the benefit works. The whole idea was that it would be more simple, but it has turned out to be far more complex. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland spoke about how Islington borough council had been able to translate the proposals into several different languages. In the debate last year I read out a chunk of one of the regulations that was virtually impossible to understand. I suggested that it would be very difficult to translate into Hindi, Gujarati or Urdu. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said that it would be a good thing if they could be translated into English. Those of us who have tried to decipher the regulations know that they are about as easy to understand as a Rubic cube. They are complex and are the sort of things that a Philadelphian lawyer would find very difficult, let alone the average private or corporation tenant.
For all those reasons, I am opposed to the regulations and share the reservations that have already been expressed. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply at the end of the debate to some of my points.
11.4 pm
Sir Paul Hawkins: I am sorry for the Minister because we are producing form after form and regulation after regulation that are incomprehensible to the average man and woman. They do not necessarily all come from his Department, but many do.
In rural areas such as my constituency with as many as 200 villages some 35 miles from the regional office of the Department of Health and Social Security, to send out forms and expect them to be filled in and returned is about as good as sending me an income tax form and expecting me to fill it in without the help of an accountant. Elderly people cannot be expected to return such forms.
There is great confusion, much of which is caused by local authorities not being up to their job and without the know-how to process such forms. Local DHSS offices, certainly in my constituency, are doing their level best to cover a wide area with no bus routes to the centre and where elderly people are often without a telephone. It is an almost impossible task.
All I would ask is that before we think up any other schemes we should try to make them as simple as possible. We should not send out three or four page forms to the elderly living perhaps 30 miles away from the centre and without a telephone.
My secretary probably deals with five or six such cases a day. Having dealt with them for some 14 years she generally understands what people are getting at on the telephone or by letter. However, she has to put those problems to the DHSS and many of the junior officials do not understand the forms themselves.
All I ask is that country districts should have local offices open on market days when buses come in from the countryside so that complicated forms can be explained to those who have to fill them in. It is too much to ask elderly, deaf and infirm people to travel some 30 to 35 miles to a DHSS office where, if they cannot be seen
294
within an hour or so, they have to leave to catch their bus home and thus waste a day without seeing anybody who can help them.
I understand that in most cases the Minister is trying to help people. In many cases a person will benefit if a form is filled in properly. However, I hope that before the Government begin their second term of office we shall try to simplify the forms and procedures. We should try to think of those who have to fill in the forms who are mostly the ill, disabled and those living long distances from the offices.
11.10 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: In his opening remarks the Under-Secretary of State explained that the regulations are necessary to deal with some of the "anomalies" in the housing benefit scheme; I prefer the word "defects". My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) explained clearly how some of the defects affect people all over the country.
I want to express great disappointment that the Government have not taken the opportunity to rectify one of the greatest defects in the scheme for tenants of Birmingham city council. I recognise that the problem has arisen because of the way the housing benefit scheme has been implemented by the city council and not as a direct result of the intention of the Government. Nevertheless, the defect has been drawn to their attention and I am not only disappointed but amazed that they are not doing anything about it. It will cause great suffering, as I will show, for tenants of Birmingham city council who come under the housing benefit scheme.
It must be emphasised that the defect affects every tenant in Birmingham covered by the scheme. In most local authorities the rent is paid in advance; in Birmingham it is paid in arrears and it becomes payable on a Monday. It follows that when the housing scheme came into effect on 22 November, which was a Monday, the tenants of Birmingham city council were liable to pay their rent on that day. The supplementary benefit which they received on that day or on succeeding days was reduced by the amount of the housing element. They therefore expected that the introduction of the scheme would mean that the rent for that Monday would be covered by the Department of Health and Social Security. It came as a great surprise to everyone that the tenants of that council would have to find one week's rent out of their basic supplementary benefit without any extra money from the DHSS.
As I have explained, their supplementary benefit was reduced on the day the housing benefit scheme came into operation or on succeeding days. It was reasonable for everyone to think that this was all right because the scheme was taking effect at the same time. However, the housing department wanted to be sure about the matter so it contacted the Department of Health and Social Security, pointed out that people were being asked to pay on Monday, 22 November, the rent for the preceding week and inquired whether this meant that it should look to the tenants for that rent or whether the scheme would cover it, bearing in mind that the tenants had become liable to pay the rent only on the day the housing benefit scheme came into operation.
To be fair, I must point out that a civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Security sent a most helpful letter in reply. I have seen a copy of that letter and

295
it was well intentioned. It is clear that the civil servant believed that Birmingham city council should look to the DHSS and not to the tenants for the one week's rent. Unfortunately, the officers of the city housing department decided that they could not rely on the letter from the DHSS without showing it to the city solicitor. When it got into the hands of the lawyers, the answer came back that, whatever the DHSS thought, the lawyers believed that the tenants were liable for the week's rent because it was the rent for the week before the scheme took effect.
Up to that point I had sympathy with the city housing department. I do not know why its officials thought it was necessary to show a letter from the DHSS to the city solicitor, and why they could not have accepted it in good faith and gone ahead in the interests of the tenants. However that may be, I then lost all sympathy with Birmingham city council. It should have gone back to the DHSS and said that, although it had received the Department's letter reassuring it that the rent was covered by the scheme, it had had legal advice that the Department was not correct.
It would have expected discussions to have taken place between the city housing department and the DHSS in the interests of tenants who by definition have so little income that they are covered by the scheme. Instead, the Conservative-controlled housing committee simply went ahead on the basis of the council's own legal advice and decided typically to clobber the tenants, to charge every tenant covered by the scheme one week's rent and so put them into rent arrears. It then sent out letters demanding one week's rent from all these tenants. Not surprisingly, some tenants went to their local councillors, some came to the advice bureaux of Members of Parliament and others went to the citizens advice bureau. All these representatives took up the problem with the city housing department. The position was then explained to us.
Since I was not satisfied, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Services, who happens to represent part of the city of Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made the mistake of writing to one of the junior Ministers, and he tells me that he has not yet received a reply, although it may be in the post. I have received a reply from the Secretary of State so I can tell my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) that it is not that local authorities do not have the know-how—the city of Birmingham has the know-how; it knows how to clobber the tenants. It is also that the Secretary of State for Social Services will not do anything about it, even though his constituents are affected by the implementation of his housing benefit scheme. In his letter, which I have received within the past 24 hours, he says that it is a matter for the city council and that he will not intervene.
When I wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Services, I explained that I could not believe that he had intended the housing benefit scheme to operate in such a way. I was prepared to accept from the Secretary of State that it was the usual attitude of Conservative councillors in the city of Birmingham which was responsible for tenants being asked to find an extra week's rent and not his scheme. Now he has told me that the only difference between Birmingham and the Department of Health and Social Security concerns the dates of commencement and termination—a perceptive comment by the Secretary of State as that was the whole purpose of my letter to him.
296
The Secretary of State explains that as the only difference concerns the dates of commencement and termination, and as the tenants will be covered by the housing benefit scheme for the right number of weeks, there is no need to do anything about it. In fact, it is precisely the date of commencement that matters, because it means that tenants are being asked to find one week's rent out of their basic supplementary benefit or supplementary pension.
Many of those tenants are old-age pensioners. Some of the people who have come to me are in their seventies and have never owed a penny in their lives. They are upset at finding suddenly that they have been put into rent arrears through no fault of theirs. In the real world in which these old-age pensioners and I and my hon. Friends live, the date of termination will be when they die because these old-age pensioners will never come off supplementary benefit and pension. They will never live to see themselves come out of the housing benefit scheme. They will never get back the extra week's rent from the housing benefit scheme through not having to pay a week's rent or receive it in some other way from some other benefits. These people have never been in rent arrears in their lives and they have been put there by the combined efforts of the Conservative Government and Conservative city council.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the latest figures from the Birmingham city housing department. It claims that in the last quarter of last year rent arrears in Birmingham rose by £2 million. It is blaming it on the tenants whereas we can see clearly, from what my hon. Friend has said, that it is a paper transaction and is no fault of the tenants.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. It is worse than that, because these people are being asked to pay a week's rent. Many of them are old-age pensioners, some of them are families with young children and some are single-parent families. They all, by definition, have great difficulty in making ends meet.
Whatever may be the differences between the Government and the Opposition about the extent to which supplementary benefit can and must be increased, I should have thought that we could agree that the amount of supplementary benefit is calculated so carefully that it does not provide for luxuries. It does not provide the luxury of one week's rent. Those people are now being asked to pay one week's rent out of their basic benefit and pension. That means that an old-age pensioner or a single parent will have to choose between buying food or clothes for the children and paying one week's rent—about £20, which is a lot of money for someone who is living on supplementary benefit or supplementary pension. They will have to pay that amount out of their supplementary benefit for an extra week's rent instead of buying food or something else.
This is an appalling scandal. The worst thing is that the Secretary of State, who represents part of the city of Birmingham, has refused to intervene. The Government must stop trying to play Pontius Pilate and deal with this defect in the housing benefit scheme as well as the others.
11.21 pm
Mr. Newton: In the light of the vigour with which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) has

297
just spoken, I shall pick up his point straight away. He will realise that as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to him in a letter dated 24 March, of which I have a copy, there is relatively little that I can add at this stage. We have noted his remarks. I have no doubt also that the Birmingham city council will note his remarks, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
I say almost as an aside that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), the Minister for Social Security, tells me that he sent the hon. Member for Perry Barr a copy of the Secretary of State's letter to the hon. Member for Stechford on the day that it was dispatched or a day later. However, there has been either a mistake or a misunderstanding. I undertake on behalf of my hon. Friend that we shall make sure that he has a further copy of it at the earliest moment.
Having said that, it would be wrong for me to attempt to follow further the comments by the hon. Member for Stechford, but in fairness to my right hon. Friend, I ought to place firmly on the public record the major point that my right hon. Friend made in the letter to him. He said:
"The local administration of housing benefit is the responsibility of individual authorities and not for my Department. As happened in this case, authorities are free to ask my Department for advice, but at the end of the day, they have the final responsibility for implementing the new scheme in their area.
If claimants in Birmingham are dissatisfied with the authority's interpretation, they have a remedy in the review procedures under part VIII of the Housing Benefits Regulations 1982. These include the opportunity for a claimant, or their representative, to have their detailed case heard by a review board of local councillors."
Mr. Terry Davis: I wish to put to the Minister a most important point. The defence of the city housing department is that it has no choice and that it is a matter of law. It has been advised by the city solicitor that it must behave in that way. Is the Minister saying that it has a choice? The implication of the Secretary of State's letter is that it can decide for itself how to implement the housing benefit scheme. The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking that line, too. It is of great importance to the tenants of Birmingham whether the Government believe that the city of Birmingham has been wrongly advised on legal grounds and is taking the decision on policy grounds.
Mr. Newton: I cannot say much more than I have already said, which places on the record what my right hon. Friend has already written to the hon. Gentleman, but obviously, in view of the strength of feeling, especially as it has been expressed in the House, both we in the Department, and undoubtedly the city of Birmingham, will have a closer look at what has been said tonight, particularly at the suggestion that the legal advice given to the city of Birmingham is at variance with the implied advice contained in my right hon. Friend's letter. It would be stupid for me to venture into judging between competing advice, both sets of which have been drawn at some stage from legal advice off the cuff from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the Minister is suggesting to individuals in Birmingham that they should go to the review body, it would be essential for them to have a copy of the letter of advice from his Department and the legal
298
advice which supported it. Will he make it available to hon. Members so that they can supply it to anyone in Birmingham who wants to go to the review body? Will he also ensure that his officials can be called to a review body to give evidence in support of their letter?
Mr. Newton: I do not want to go beyond what I have already said and give off-the-cuff comments or commitments which could have legal consequences, but I can undertake that we will consider urgently tomorrow the hon. Gentleman's points.
Mr. Rooker: Before the Minister leaves this subject, I should like to put to him a point which is not unimportant for the tenants of Birmingham city council. When he conducts these discussions, for which we are grateful, will he be careful about the involvement of the chairman of Birmingham housing committee, who has been known in the past few months to disclose the personal details of tenants' rent arrears on radio programmes?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Member will not expect me to comment on that. I hope that the House will now allow me to move on to other significant and important points that have been raised during the debate, on the understanding that I recognise the strength with which hon. Members from Birmingham and elsewhere have spoken about this matter and will study carefully everything that has been said in the debate.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) asked several important and relevant questions. He asked how many people stand to lose from the provisions in regulation 2(7)(a). I am advised that only about 300 claimants benefit from the existing provision which is being altered. We have changed it on the basis that, if a householder is having difficulty in meeting housing costs, his proper recourse should be to housing benefit or supplementary benefit. If the housing benefit claim succeeds, the non-dependent deductions will equate to the non-householder contribution, and there is therefore no need to top up the non-householder's supplementary benefit. If the claim fails, there can hardly be hardship on any reasonable interpretation of the word. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the consequences of the change are not as serious as he had initially feared.
With regard to 16 and 17-year-olds, the hon. Gentleman talked of £29 million being "clawed back" by the Treasury. He spoke as if the £29 million constituted an addition of sums, taking two years together: £10 million in 1983–84 and £19 million in 1985. His comments must be viewed against the background that the withdrawal of the non-householder contribution in these cases is part of the general package in which savings from one area are being ploughed back to make improvements elsewhere. While I accept that it is possible for hon. Members to object to the policy, as did the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in a previous debate on this subject, it is unreasonable to imply that this £29 million is being clawed back by the Treasury from one group of claimants, especially against the background of the transitional protection that we are introducing, and not to recognise that it is being ploughed into the significant gains that are being made by, for example, more than 1 million pensioners within the scheme.
With regard to the identification of people who might be entitled to housing benefit supplement, and the related questions which the hon. Gentleman raised, I hope he will

299
have registered the important statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security a week or so ago about the advice that we have issued to local authorities—which, as I said at Question Time the other day, we believe should, if applied, enable local authorities to identify virtually all pensioners applying for housing benefit who might qualify for either housing benefit supplement or for supplementary benefit. As I have said, I think that there is a good prospect that this will assist one of the supplementary benefit take-up problems. At least, that is my hope.
If we have made a useful move for pensioners, I must acknowledge that we have not so far found a comparable formula to apply to non-pensioners. However, we are continuing to look for one. If er can find one that is satisfactory and workable, we shall issue comparable advice to local authorities.
The housing benefit supplement should be paid from the same day as the award of housing benefit. That is our intention within the regulations.
As for the number of losers from the non-dependant package, I cannot add to the information that was given in quite an explicit letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security to the hon. Member for Perry Barr during December. The problem is as stated in the letter and the reasons why I cannot go further are similarly as stated.
Mr. Alton: As the Minister can elaborate on those who will gain, it is not clear to me why he cannot elaborate on the reasons why others are losing. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us rather more details.
Mr. Newton: The December letter was nearly two pages long and I think that the sensible course would be for me to send the hon. Gentleman a copy. The number of losers from the taper changes will be about 2·3 million. I have been asked to state the number of losers from the changes in the non-dependant arrangements, and it is in that area that much greater difficulties arise.
Among many others, there was one good and helpful question from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland to which I have a simple and clear-cut answer. It is one that gladdens my heart as much as I trust it will his. The hon. Gentleman made a plea for consolidating regulations. We desire these as much as he does and we shall endeavour to ensure that they are produced as soon as possible. I am sorry that I have to spoil the debate by using that how-long-is-a-piece-of-string phrase, but I mean "as soon as possible".
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I trust that they will be issued free of charge.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman pushes his luck. We shall certainly issue them at the most economical price. Bearing in mind the way in which inflation has decreased under the Government, the regulations will be less expensive than they would have been if the previous Labour Government had introduced them.
I revert as fast as possible to the housing benefit scheme. It is common ground that guidance has been issued to authorities. This is intended to ensure that claimants who suffer delays will continue to receive help with their rent and rates until all the necessary arrangments have been made.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) talked about private tenants. We were anxious to produce
300
the contingency plan in reasonable time because we recognised that private tenants were especially vulnerable to delays in help with their rent and rates. They need cash payments to help meet the liability to the landlords. As the hon. Gentleman said, they face the risk of eviction if they cannot meet it. Our plans are specifically designed to maintain continuity of payment to private tenants, particularly those on supplementary benefit, until the cases can be transferred. Arrears will then be made up.
Mention was made of delays in certificating private tenants' rent forms. Authorities must make interim payments of rent allowances under housing benefit regulation 35 within 14 clays of receiving the certificate from the DHSS unless they have no information about the tenant's rent. Delays in getting back correctly completed rent allowance forms should not stop authorities providing some help in most, if not all, cases, because authorities should have some idea of local rent levels if only from running the existing rent allowance schemes. I do not pretend that there can never be a problem, but it may not be as large as the hon. Member for Edge Hill implied.
I was asked about the authorities which might not complete on time. Our progress reports do not provide answers in detailed category form. Our rough estimate is that about one third of authorities have reported delays in one area of the scheme or another. I do not wish to gloss over the position, but in many years many local authorities do not complete on time their rebate exercises for the existing rent and rate rebate schemes. It is rare for all the exercise to be completed perfectly every spring.
One of the problems in the social security system last year was the result of delays in fixing rent and rates and carrying through the administrative arrangements by some local authorities. We keep an eye on the position. I cannot break down the figures further.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has taken us aback by confessing that one-third of authorities will be unable to implement the Act on the relevant day. We knew that difficulties existed, but the Minister increases our fears.
Mr. Newton: That remark is not entirely justified, because much will depend on something about which we cannot give detailed information tonight, although we shall wish to report to the House further when we can. Much will depend on the numbers involved.
Only a relatively small number of claimants may be involved in the case of most authorities. I do not want to give the impression that I am saying that one-third of authorities will fail in a broad sense to implement the scheme in reasonable time. In the same way, many social security officers may be a day or two—or a week or two—late in completing every uprating case in the autumn. There will be some spillover and it would be a mistake to exaggerate the problem. We shall report to the House more fully when we can do so.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) asked about appeals. I agree that it is not for the 'local authority to decide which cases should go to the review board. Regulation 47(1) of the housing benefit regulations 1982 state that the claimant can "require" a review. I hope that that will be observed in all parts of the country.
Representations were made to hon. Members by SHAC, the Shelter Housing Aid Centre. If it provides me with written details of cases, I shall see what I can do. It would be a mistake, and not helpful to the House, to comment on anecdotal evidence.

301
There is relatively little that I can add about any of the detailed points raised on housing benefit. I wish to conclude in a way that may appeal to both sides of the House—
Mr. Brynmor John: Can the Minister reassure the House on one point? He talked about one third of local authorities not being able to start their schemes on time. That may affect some thousands or even tens of thousands of people. What transitional protection will he give to the tenants who will be disadvantaged by the failure of local authorities to implement the scheme on time?
Mr. Newton: I hope that I have already made it clear that we have issued guidance to local authorities providing for the continuation of the help they currently give during any period of difficulty that may arise in some cases for some people. If it turns out—I have no reason to suspect that it will—that the arrangements are not adequate to protect those whom we seek to protect, we will be prepared to consider them further. I wish to put it firmly on the record that it is no part of our wish that anyone should suffer because of delays which, in some cases, are inevitable in some areas where there has been difficulty in the social security system during the past few months. It is no part of our purpose that anyone should suffer, and we shall do everything possible to ensure that it does not happen.
I wish to say something that I hope will be welcome to both sides of the House, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins). The Department recognises that a great deal of work remains to be done in simplifying our leaflets and forms. That is recognised throughout Government. My hon. Friend will be aware that only last week the Lord Privy Seal made a statement about the Government's progress in eliminating forms, and their progress in simplifying them. I can fairly claim on behalf of the DHSS—and it will be acknowledged by my right hon. Friends—that that Department is one of the leading Departments in both making progress and seeking to make further progress in that area. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do so.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 6.

Division No. 108]

[11.43 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Mather, Carol

Ancram, Michael

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Nelson, Anthony

Bevan, David Gilroy

Neubert, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Newton, Tony

Bright, Graham

Osborn, John

Brooke, Hon Peter

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Buck, Antony

Rossi, Hugh

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

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Cope, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Dorrell, Stephen

Speller, Tony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Stanbrook, Ivor

Dover, Denshore

Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Dykes, Hugh

Temple-Morris, Peter

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Thompson, Donald

Fox, Marcus

Walker, B. (Perth)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Waller, Gary

Goodlad, Alastair

Watson, John

Gorst, John

Whitney, Raymond

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Wickenden, Keith

Hamilton, Hon A.

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Wolfson, Mark

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Lang, Ian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Mr. David Hunt and

Lyell, Nicholas

Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Major, John

NOES

Alton, David

Steel, Rt Hon David

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

Howells, Geraint

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

Mr. A. J. Beith and

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Mr. David Penhaligon.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Housing Benefits) (Requirements and Resources) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.

Upholstered Furniture (Safety)
11.53 pm
The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I beg to move,
That the draft Upholstered Furniture (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
I welcome the opportunity to explain these rather complicated regulations, because they will help to reduce the number of accidents due to upholstered furniture catching fire. Cigarettes are the most frequent cause of such fires, and two thirds of furniture fires are due to smouldering cigarettes. The victims are usually overcome by the dense fumes that come from modern upholstered furniture when it is set alight. Suffocation and poisoning from fumes is much more likely than actual burning. In 1981 alone, 154 people died in this way, and 830 were injured.
It is clear that if the upholstery used in such furniture could be made less likely to catch fire, many accidents could be avoided. We have already taken some steps. Since the beginning of the year, all new upholstered furniture coming on to the market has had to pass British standard 9 for resistance to smouldering cigarettes. As the new furniture replaces the older furniture over the next 10 to 15 years, we should have far fewer fires and a major improvement in home safety.
The other cause of this type of fire is matches. Such fires are also fairly common, although matches cause fewer fires than cigarettes, because most people know when they have dropped a match and put it out. Nevertheless, there are accidents. In 1981, 24 people died and 150 people were injured in fires started by matches. There is now a match test, and we hope gradually to apply it to a wide range of furniture. At present, furniture covered in wool or leather is more likely to pass the test than furniture covered with other materials. If it does not pass—and that will happen in the case of most furniture—it has to carry a warning label.
That is the present position. All furniture now has to pass the cigarette test, and it has to carry a label if it does not pass the match test. Unfortunately, however, labels can fall off, or people can forget to put them on. So after discussing the matter with the trade, we think that it would be clearer for everyone to have a positive safety label on the furniture. That is what regulation 4A will do. I should add that this is widely welcomed by the furniture trade.
Apart from old stock which is still held in shops, in future all furniture will have to be labelled. There will be two kinds of labels. The first will be a square green-edged label, saying that the furniture passes the safety standards for both cigarettes and matches. Alternatively, it will have to carry a warning label that it does not pass those standards. As all furniture has to pass the cigarette test, this will simply be a warning that it is not totally safe in the case of fire caused by matches.
Another aspect of the regulations involves children's upholstered furniture. Just over a year ago, we had reports of fires from this kind of upholstered furniture—not due to cigarettes and matches, but because they were placed too close to fires. To prevent such fires, I issued a prohibition order last April, the Children's Furniture (Safety) Order 1982. It was to last for one year only. It limited the amount of polyurethane foam and expanded
304
polystyrene that could be used in the upholstery. I am glad to report that since then there have been no further accidents.
This order will expire on 6 April, and it is important that the prohibition should now be made permanent. The industry pointed out that by detailing the materials as we did it is possible for one dangerous material to be replaced by another, and that in its view it would be much better to have an overall safety standard. I agree. We would have done that in the first place, but it would halve taken a considerable time to develop new standards, and I thought—correctly, as events turned out—that it was urgent to have some control. That is why I detailed the materials.
We are now in a position to require that the materials pass a British standard test, as set out in the regulations. Children's furniture with very little upholstery will be exempted, and there are some rather complicated transitional arrangements in regulation 5A(i)(b). The purpose is to avoid having a gap between the ending of the previous order on 6 April and the coming into force of the new regulations. The regulations will apply to goods for sale here, and goods made here for export. I do not claim that these regulations are the complete answer. It would be very nice if all furniture could pass both cigarette and match safety tests, but that is not practicable at the moment. It would mean either that the furniture became excessively expensive—the cost of a suite of furniture would be increased by about £30 to £40—or that the furniture was unpleasant to use and that people would not want to buy it.
A good deal of research is being done into this problem. My Department is sponsoring research into useful ways of classifying upholstery, and the British Standards Institution is investigating ways of measuring the rate at which a fire develops. The Government are also following, and contributing to, research into the filling materials used in padding furniture. It is the dense smoke that these materials can give off that is so dangerous. When I visited the fire research station recently, I was allowed to drop a match on to an upholstered armchair. The flame went up the back of the chair quite slowly until it was about an inch from the top, and then, to my great surprise, it spread with appalling speed. Within seconds the room—we had left by then—was filled with some of the densest black smoke that I had ever seen. I was told that on average this happens after only 1½ to 2 minutes, and that escape from the premises would then be extremely difficult. I was told that this is one of the causes of family deaths. An adult in the family smells something wrong, goes downstairs to see what is happening and then, because of the fumes, cannot get back to rescue the rest of his family.
The regulations are not a perfect solution but they are a step in the right direction. I believe that they will reduce the incidence of deaths and injuries, and I recommend them to the House.
12.2 am
Mr. John Fraser: I welcome the regulations and the progress that has been made in protecting consumers from furniture that is highly inflammable or that is toxic when it catches fire. I welcome the fact that the smouldering cigarette test will

305
now apply to all furniture and that the labelling will be more permanent. In previous debates there has been some criticism of the tie-on labels that are sometimes used.
Eventually, consumers should be protected from furniture that remains liable to catch fire under the match test. The Minister has just given a graphic example of how furniture can become lethal within minutes. That example reminds us that it should be our aim eventually to protect consumers from all furniture which is likely to have that characteristic.
The Minister tells us that research is being carried out. It would be interesting to know whether there are any leads which might result in safer furniture. Some manufacturers claim that at little extra expense they could produce fabrics that could pass the butane gas test.
Can the Minister tell us what change in the pattern of sales there has been since the regulations were introduced in 1980? I in no way criticise the idea of labelling furniture, but the mere labelling of furniture only gives warning of the risk; it does not eliminate it. I may be wrong. Consumers may have changed their patterns of furniture purchasing dramatically as a result of the information statutorily made available to them about the risks involved, but I suspect that that is not the case and that, despite the interference with freedom that it entails, mandatory prohibition of dangerous furniture will eventually be necessary. In this context, one thinks of the recent tragic loss of life in the Italian cinema fire, in which I suspect that foam seat filling was involved as well as neglect of safety regulations. I should be grateful for any information that the Minister can give about whether purchasing patterns have changed markedly as a result of the regulations or whether he agrees that progress should continue to try to ensure that all furniture is absolutely safe.
The dangers of foam-filled furniture came to the fore after the Woolworth fire in Piccadilly, Manchester. I realise that the Home Office was responsible for the inquiry into that, but as long ago as May 1980 the Home Secretary said:
"I agree that suitable regulations should be made under section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to control the display in shops and department stores of polyurethane foam-filled furniture, and have authorised the necessary research to be put in hand to devise the details of such control."—[Official Report, 20 May 1980; Vol. 985, c.104.]
I do not know what liaison there is between the Department of Trade and the Home Office in these matters, but perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that research has led to any recommendations that might be followed by the Department responsible for consumer protection.
The question of consolidation was raised, with justice, in the previous debate on housing benefit regulations. It is important that regulations relating to any matter, but perhaps especially to safety, should be clearly and easily understood by anyone who has to operate them. There is great advantage in not having subsidiary legislation by amendment or by reference but whenever possible reenacting the legislation and putting it in the simplest and clearest possible form. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when these regulations will be consolidated.
12.7 am
Mr. Bill Walker: Given the right conditions for combustion, all upholstered furniture will burn. Almost every filling, whether traditional or modern, will burn, and most will give off fumes.
Considerable research has taken place in the development of fillings that are cost-effective and can be used in the modern designs that consumers wish to buy. The only sure way to prevent fires is to ban matches, cigarettes and all other sources of ignition, but that is neither realistic nor practicable. We must therefore continue to search for other answers.
The British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations, for which I speak, have always taken a constructive but realistic attitude towards the public desire for safer upholstered furniture. In so doing, they have acknowledged the technical and financial implications of compliance with the match test, to which I shall return in a moment.
The associations' attitude towards the amended regulations now before us can be summarised as follows. They favour positive labelling. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the associations and I proposed positive labelling at the outset, but we were informed that this would not conform with the provisions of the Act. The associations also favour bringing children's furniture within the regulations. Again, I remind my hon. Friend that the manufacturers said last year that this was a better way to deal with the problem than prohibiting specific materials.
The BFMFA believes that no really worthwhile purpose will be served by making the match test mandatory at this point. Indeed, in the present state of technical knowledge, it would not be very wise to set a date for this test, no matter how far in the future it may be. I would go further and say that it would be irresponsible to make the match test mandatory, or to set a date, when the technical problems have not yet been resolved.
To set a date could result in even more time and energy being expended to very little purpose, because after all, it is the smouldering cigarette that is the real problem and the main source of accidental fire for upholstered furniture. Indeed, as has been said, two thirds of fires stem from that source. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister would also accept that most of the solutions to fires stem not from objective but from subjective analyses. They are made after the event, and it is difficult to prove whether a smouldering cigarette or a match caused the fire unless the individuals in question can say what the source was.
As the cigarette test is now mandatory, it would seem sensible and reasonable to leave the match test out. Anyone who has studied this problem will be aware that the handle of material and the feel of the finished product have much to do with design and customer appeal. At the end of the day we must realise that it is the customer who is the final arbiter on all these things. It is no good—as they discovered at Linwood—making cars that no one will buy. It is no good the British furniture manufacturers making furniture if people decide that they do not want to buy it simply because the design no longer appeals and so buy other products.
Furniture is a fashion industry and is very much influenced by the pressure on pockets. Anyone who has studied how the British public spends its money will realise that more money is spent on drinking, smoking and

307
gambling than on furnishing, or indeed on buying homes. Therefore, we can see the pressures on the furniture industry.
The classification of fabrics and fillings has much to commend it, because in some instances the fabric on the wrong filling can produce a finished article that is more liable to ignition than the same fabric on a different filling. Therefore, the combination of filling and cover is important, and positive labelling in that respect is very welcome.
Some technical problems must be resolved before legislation can be introduced for the match test. The Furniture Industry Research Association has carried out considerable work in this area, and is of the opinion that an objective study would need to be carried out before the Minister could introduce legislation for the match test. In the opinion of the association, to do so on present knowledge and information would be a gamble—an absolute gamble. In the present state of the British furniture industry we cannot take such a gamble.
Instead, the Minister should conduct a study to determine the current fabrics in use and their ability to be upgraded. Indeed, only a tiny proportion of the total fabric that is used on British upholstered furniture would pass the flame test at the moment. I refer largely to the wool fabrics which represent a small proportion of the total used in the furnishing industry. Obviously there will have to be a change in the composition of fabrics, and we will have to know about the effective treatments, the likely treatments that are being developed, and new fabrics and new materials. There is a distinct need to forecast the availability and cost factors involved in these important solutions.
It is suggested that we should conduct a survey of at least 30 domestic furniture manufacturing companies and a substantial number of key retailers to discuss the problems with them in depth and hence find out the problems that they perceive on the introduction of the match test. As a result of the study, it would be possible to forecast the cost implications. My hon. Friend the Minister touched on that, and perhaps the figure of £30 was on the low side. I always thought that it would be much higher if one tried to account for every item of furniture upholstered in a fabric that would comply with the match test. For example, upholstery covered in wool is much more expensive than that covered in man-made fibres. There is much more work, therefore, to be done. We would also have to look at the 95 per cent. of fabrics that are on the market that would not pass the match test and develop treatments or alternatives, and that could not be done easily.
I understand the pressures that my hon. Friend and his Department face from those concerned with fire safety. We are all worried about fire safety because one death in a fire is one death too many. But we must also put such deaths into perspective against the number of homes in the United Kingdom and the number of people who die every day on the roads and as a result of other accidents. One can then see that the deaths from upholstery fires are comparatively few. However, I repeat that one death is one death too many. Consequently, I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend accepts that the arguments need to be studied in greater depth and that he will take full account of the views and evidence of the furniture industry.
I can remember that when we last debated this subject the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr.
308
Brown) told us of the cushions that he kept in his garage. A long time has passed since then and I imagine that they are still in his garage. I have not heard that they have combusted as he said they would. I look forward to hearing his observations and comments. It seemed to me at that time that those of us who had had such furniture for many years were under some threat. I have had the upholstery that I sit on at home for nearly 30 years and I wonder how much I am at risk if one can leave such cushions to combust in the garage. Of course, I am being a little frivolous, but this is a serious problem both for the individuals who wish to use the upholstery and those who work in the industry. Somehow we must get the balance right. We should not be panicked by those who wish us to bring in unworkable regulations that would not be cost-effective.
12.16 am
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I have just spent part of the last hour reading the speeches that were made on 22 May 1980. I notice that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) has been sacked from a few jobs since then. He had to declare many interests on that occasion but today declared only his interest in the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations. I too must declare that I have been sacked. For 14 years I was a representative of the Furniture Timber and Allied Trades Union, but because I am no longer a member of the Labour party and because the Communist general secretary of that union decided that I was not competent to represent it, I am no longer its parliamentary adviser. The Communist general secretary does not like to have a member of the Social Democratic party representing the union. Therefore the hon. Gentleman is not the only one who has lost a few jobs.
I still maintain my close interest in the subject of polyurethane foam. The hon. Gentleman misses the whole point. He keeps asking the Minister to introduce inquiries and to do this and that to the industry, but, as I said in the last debate, no manufacturer has the right to produce anything that is not safe. It is nonsense to produce an unsafe material and then demand that the Minister should use taxpayers' money to find some way of overcoming the by-product. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head because that is the position.
Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there are some who think that cigarettes should be banned because there is evidence to suggest that cigarettes can be harmful. Yet as a non-smoker I would not dream of saying that cigarette manufacturing companies must carry out tests and so on in the way that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is changing the subject. We are talking about a material that is known to be dangerous.
Mr. Walker: So are cigarettes.
Mr. Brown: They may be harmful, but they are not dangerous.
Mr. Walker: They are.
Mr. Brown: That is a matter of opinion. I do not want to enter into an argument across the Floor of the House. The foam is dangerous.

309
I thought that the Minister had been reading the speech that I made in the debate on 22 May 1980 when he rehearsed the argument that within 30 seconds the temperature of the flames will rise to 650 deg. C. He forgot to add the other bit that after three minutes the toxic fumes are superheated to 1000 deg. C and, as he rightly observed, people are killed by the inhalation of the superheated smoke and the toxicity of the smoke rather than by the burning. Therefore, I come back to the point that anybody who manufactures that sort of material has a major responsibility, which they cannot offload on to the Minister or anyone else. The manufacturers cannot expect the Minister to hold an inquiry to find a way of covering up their mistake. It is no good taking that attitude. Society and the House are entitled to expect the industry itself to take action.
I am sad that the Minister, so long after the 1980 debate, has been unable to tell us what work has been undertaken by the manufacturers to produce a safer foam. When he replies, I hope that the Minister of State will tell us exactly what work has been carried out by the industry, what steps have been taken to make the foam safer and whether he proposes to tell the manufacturers at any time that unless they can produce a safe foam they cannot go on manufacturing it.
In regulation 2(3)(b) it is proposed that the word "resistant" should appear on every label. I am not sure that it can be proved that the material is resistant. In 1980 we could not claim that it was resistant. I was assured by the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) that she could not use the word "resistant" because if an article caught fire and it was shown that it was not resistant, she would be culpable; therefore, the Government would be responsible and could be taken to court. We had a long argument in private discussion about why she could not use the word "resistant". The Minister has not told me what has taken place between then and now to allow us to use the word "resistant" rather than the cautionary term indicating that people should be careful when using the furniture.
We have moved away from the major problem of the foam to the manufacturers of the fabric. When I was speaking in 1980 I said that it was disgraceful that the poor old textile industry, which was on its uppers then—it is even more so now—should have the responsibility of covering the dangerous material for the foam manufacturers who are on a gravy train. They make a great profit because foam is a by-product of petroleum; it is what is left over and so they do not pay for it. Yet the textile manufacturers have to go to great expense because the foam manufacturers have to have their bad material covered. I do not know why a levy is not put on them to contribute to the cost of £30 which has been referred to. Why should they not have to pay something, because it is their material that is causing the trouble? The Minister has again let the foam manufacturers off very lightly.
In regulation 2(3)(c) it is proposed that the label shall carry the words:
"Meets the requirements for resistance to cigarette and match ignition in the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations"
All those words will mislead a purchaser into believing that the furniture is safe, but it will be no safer than it was. If it catches fire, as the Minister rightly observed, people will not get out of the house; within three minutes they will
310
all be dead. The words in the parent regulations were much better because they drew attention to the product itself and to the need for caution. Those words requiring caution should remain in the regulations. We should not give anyone the impression that if upholstered furniture which contains polyurethane foam has passed the cigarette test and/or the flame test there is no danger.
I believe that regulations 3(a) and (b) are not as dynamic as the 1980 regulations. I find regulation 5(a) a little odd. When it is read in its entirety it comes out about right, but it seems a little odd to have
"This Regulation applies to any children's furniture other than children's furniture".
There is then a hyphen and the regulation continues with (a), (b) and (c). I should have thought the regulation could have been worded slightly differently so that the meaning was plain—that children's furniture is excluded in certain circumstances only. I accept the Minister's point that the regulations have had some effect on children's furniture. However, he did say that if the furniture were moved nearer the fire, the fire had an effect on the foam and caused it to burn.
I still have the cushions in my garage and they are growing bigger and bigger and fatter and fatter. I had the feeling that hon. Members representing places such as Perth and East Perthshire would try and make a funny, so I checked the cushions this morning. Fortunately, the garage is not mine. I hired it so I can continue the experiment. It is fascinating and I am waiting to see the end product. I shall take the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire to see them one day and he will see them growing.
The Minister is now telling my tale so I shall not have to speak for so long. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire also told my stories so I shall not have to cover that. In 1968 when I first began this trek I was either a fool, an educated fool or a malicious educated fool, because it was said that nothing that I was saying was true. I can claim to have moved from illegitimacy to legitimacy between 1968 and 1983. I find myself utterly kosher and returned to society. I have been, as it were, rejigged.
I am happy that the House, the Government and the Minister are beginning to appreciate the importance of this issue. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has always appreciated it. I have paid tribute to him for that. When he became Minister responsible for this subject he gave every consideration to all the information available to him. These regulations were started through his diligence. If he had not lost office before they were approved his name would have been on them rather than that of the right hon. Member for Gloucester.
I am prepared to support what is being put forward, but these regulations are not sufficient. The Minister did not tell us how many deaths he thinks may have been avoided because of the regulations. Can he assess whether there has been an improvement? I could not hear the number of deaths that he mentioned because of the talking that was going on around me, but I believe that he said that there had been about 800 injuries.
I am not sure whether the number of deaths has decreased. I have sought the figures and it does not appear that there has been an improvement. If the regulations were successful I should have thought that we would have seen a marked reduction in the number of deaths and injuries caused by fire.

311
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, and the Minister also, I believe, said that two thirds of the fires are caused by smouldering cigarettes. As I said on the previous occasions when the matter was debated, there is not a shred of evidence that that is true. It is a subjective judgment made by a fire officer going around the scene when the fire is out and when the place is full of water. He looks round to see what he can find. He sees certain things. He sees whether electrical wiring is showing signs of wear. He tries to see whether coal from a fire has caused the fire and whether there has been arson by petrol and so on. He asks the people "Do you smoke?". They reply "Yes." He says "Ah. Were you smoking just before the fire?" "Yes." "Ah. What has happened is that you must have put a cigarette out." "I did not." "Yes, you must have put a cigarette out, but it did not go out properly. It smouldered and caused the fire." He writes the report on that assumption.
Dr. Vaughan: No.
Mr. Brown: The Minister says no, but I say, "yes". I read many coroners' reports, giving evidence of the cause of death. None of them says that the fire was due to a cigarette or a match. They all say "It could be", "It might be", "It possibly was", "There is evidence that", but not one says "It was". The one piece of evidence that is not available to the officer is the polyurethane foam. The reason why it is not available for the officer to examine is that it has been consumed. He would not know what the filling in the chair was because all the foam is consumed.
Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that research conducted in Glasgow showed that over 50 per cent. of those who died that sort of death were intoxicated beyond the level at which they would be considered drunk? Does he think that that is a contributory factor?
Mr. Brown: No, I do not believe that that is a contributory factor because my view is that, even in those circumstances, if the foam had not been there, they might have been safe. That is what I believe to be true. The hon. Gentleman will keep on eliminating the foam as part of the cause. It is the cause. The hon. Gentleman said that anything burns. That is true. There is no argument about that. I have asked the hon. Gentleman before and I ask him again to name one combustible in the home that has the same burning characteristic as foam. There is not one. The hon. Gentleman does not have to think about that. I am telling him that not one combustible in the home will reach 650 deg C within 30 seconds of catching fire. No fumes reach 1,000 deg C within three minutes—from wool or anything else.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman would understand that. He is trying to make excuses, saying "Brown and the others are making a song and dance about this." He may be a representative of the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations, but he does not have to grovel on his knees for them. It is perfectly straightforward that the foam is a problem. Now society is beginning to learn the important lesson that many people have died who need not have died if we had taken a stronger line on foam.
I welcome this further step with the regulations and sincerely hope that it will go some way towards helping to stop further deaths, although I very much doubt it. I again appeal to the Minister to insist that the responsibility of the manufacturers of foam is to find a safer foam. I was
312
assured four years ago that much research was going on and that everyone was putting his hand to the wheel to find it. Four years have gone by and there have been no reports. I have tried to find out what has happened, who is doing the research and what progress is being made. The answer is that nothing is being done.
Why cannot the Minister say that he will give the industry one or two more years to get itself into good order and manufacture a safe foam, or he will give notice that he does not intend to extend the regulations beyond 1984? Putting the labels on is only a sign. The real problem is with the foam. Get rid of the foam, and many deaths due to fires in the home will cease.
12.35 am
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I doubt whether anyone will give other than a welcome to the regulations, but it is only fair to remind the Minister that many hon. Members consider the regulations to be only a modest step in the direction that is necessary if we are to have complete safety in the furniture used in our homes.
Pressure on the Minister's predecessor led to the introduction of the 1980 regulations, which were not directed primarily against the fabrics which covered the furniture. They were a response to a broadly felt public outcry against the deaths from fires which caused toxic fumes from the furniture's filling. When the 1980 regulations were introduced, many of us felt that, while it was desirable to seek to protect with a cover the dangerous material used for filling, the regulations were only a palliative. What is really necessary is the introduction of furniture fillings which may be combustible—I accept that almost anything is combustible under the right circumstances—but are not so combustible as polyurethane foam, and which do not give off toxic fumes when they are in flames.
I recognise that the regulations have a value inasmuch as they provide for safer covers to be used in furnishings or at least ensure that where safer covers are not used, the public who make the purchases know the risks they are running. However, in practice, the covers do not normally cause great injury or death. Certain synthetics flare and can melt, and the melted fabric can stick to the skin and cause serious burns. Therefore, I trust that the Minister will press on with the necessary arrangements, after the introduction of which he will not be prepared to tolerate furnishing covers which do not meet the match lest. It would concentrate the minds of the textile and furniture industries wonderfully if a date were fixed for the introduction of the match test for all furnishing fabrics. At the same time, we should recognise that even if that were done, we should not have dealt with the basic problem of dangerous fillings. I appeal to the Minister to consider the banning of polyurethane foam in furnishings and to follow the line for children's furnishings and phase out the use of those materials as far as possible and as quickly as possible.
I do not accept that, in a world that can put men on the moon, we cannot produce cheap, flexible fillings for furnishings. I am certain that we will go on using polyurethane foam for as long as it is legal and profitable so to do. We have had to say that dangerous children's toys cannot be sold, that dangerous electrical equipment cannot be sold and that dangerous motor vehicles cannot be sold. In the end it is necessary to introduce regulations because until they are introduced we will hear the argument that

313
the better product would cost more money. That is a specious argument, because if we had less combustible fillings which, if they did burn, did not produce toxic fumes, it would not be necessary to have the same expensive processing of the covers. Reductions in the cost of covers could be set against the possibly increased cost of the fillings.
The regulations have further weaknesses concerning covers. The labels are likely quickly to become lost or removed. They are not likely to be available for the second and third-hand users of the furniture. It is common for furniture to pass from one room to another and then to be passed on to others for their use. There is a danger that furniture which may be acquired or received as a gift will not carry the necessary warning.
As furniture wears, the thickness of the covers is reduced. When the pile is at its thickest it may be able to meet the mandatory cigarette test, and may even have retardant properties to meet the match test, but after receiving heavy wear and when it becomes old it will not have the same resistant properties as hitherto.
I am concerned about the re-covering of furniture either professionally or by the use of furnishing fabrics that are used in the home, including the use of loose covers. The newly fitted cover may be more flammable than the material that it covers. A fabric which has good retardant properties may be subject to a greater flame from the new cover.
I am equally worried about the use of cleaners and solvents on furnishing fabrics. In a home where there are children there are spills on furniture which need to be removed. The chemical effect of the use of solvents, or scrubbing with soap and water, will be considerable on the flame retardant properties over a period.
As long as we follow the blind alley of retardant qualities for covers we shall continue to face the problems that I have listed. All these dangers could be removed by providing a safe filling.
I welcome the regulations and the progress that they represent in fire precautions, but they are still grossly inadequate. We should be directing our attention to the real culprit, which is the filling.
12.43 am
Mr. Raymond Whitney: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, especially as it allows me the chance to offer my commiserations to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who has been removed from his post as adviser to the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union by a Communist member of the union. The hon. Gentleman's contribution to the union and his assiduity over many years is widely respected in the furniture industry. It is highly regrettable that such action should have taken place. We may all have our views on the wisdom or otherwise of joining the Social Democratic party, but that scarcely merits the sort of treatment that the hon. Gentleman has received, especially when we bear in mind the service that he has given to the union.
I join in the welcome that the House has given to the regulations. They have been produced after extremely careful co-operation with the furniture industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) has said, the industry welcomes the labeling
314
proposals that are set out in the regulations and those on the setting of ignition performances for children's furniture.
I commend the Minister's decision not to put a date on the mandatory introduction of the match test. In that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). Given the importance of putting no more strain on the industry in its present delicate state, nothing must be done, within the limits of safety, to jeopardise the future of that industry. There is a balance between the safety requirements and the economic health of the industry. The Minister's proposals have struck that balance.
Without more technological progress, the problem of the consumer attractiveness of the materials and the cost implications to which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire referred could be severe and have serious repercussions on the industry and on jobs.
I hope that the Minister will continue to pursue his wise course and use all the means in the Government machine and in the industry to find a final solution—if it is to be found—to the flammability problem. I hope that in the meantime he will hold to the line between the safety needs and the needs of the furniture industry.
12.46 am
Dr. Vaughan: This has been an interesting debate. It is extraordinary that so many hon. Members have such a deep knowledge of the subject. It is encouraging that the general view is that this is an important issue which we cannot let rest. Further research is needed and we must press the industry to get on with it, because we shall keep returning to it.
I have been asked many questions. I was particularly pleased to hear the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who said that we must keep a sense of balance and recognise the efforts that the furniture industry has made. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) made the same point. The furniture industry is co-operative and it recognises the need to come forward with safer materials.
Listening to the interesting remarks by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) I wondered how many furniture manufacturers there were in his constituency. He will know that their profit margins are very small indeed. We are not talking about an industry which slaps a high price on its products, so we must look at the industry's general problems if we are to do something which will push up the costs and reduce sales. The figure that we have heard tonight of the increase in cost of a suite of furniture would be even higher than the cost that I mentioned of £30 to £40. That is considerable.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked about research and less expensive substitutes. We have heard much about the importance of finding a substitute for foam. Foam creates the greatest danger, but substitutes cost three to four times more; they are extremely hard and unlikely to be acceptable to customers. It is not realistic to set a definite time limit when all furniture must conform to a match test. However, I know that the industry is carrying out research, some of which is sponsored by the Government, as quickly as possible.
Only 10 per cent. of furniture coming on to the market can carry the new label. Customer purchasing power is tremendously effective. I hope that customers will look out

315
for furniture with a safety label and ask traders why they do not stock more of that furniture. In that way we shall increase the incentives for the industry to produce such furniture.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch asked about figures. We do not have any realistic statistics. It takes 10 to 15 years to get stock out of the system. I forecast that within a few years definite figures will show a decrease in fires, especially those caused by smouldering cigarettes. I mentioned earlier that children's furniture—it is rather specialised furniture—has been made much safer. There has been a dramatic drop in the number of fires, which is pleasing.
The hon. Member for Norwood asked about the Home Office. It is currently considering regulations under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 in the light of recommendations made by the central fire brigade advisory council. That has occurred as a result of the serious fire in 1979 at the Woolworth store in Manchester. I understand that consultations with the trade and other interested parties are taking place. I undertake to follow up that matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the Minister will follow up that matter urgently. I know that it is not his responsibility, but it has been four years, which is a long time, since the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to toughen up the regulations. The history involves not months, but years—even decades—before something happens.
Dr. Vaughan: I appreciate the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Home Office is taking some steps. It is asking that furniture in residential care homes passes both the match and cigarette tests. I know from my experience as a health Minister of the amount of attention that I and others gave to having fire-resistant materials in hospital wards and places where the elderly and mentally handicapped are nursed.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the regulations could be consolidated. We have no plans to do that, but if it becomes necessary to amend the regulations again we shall consider consolidation rather than endless amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire spoke about the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations, which have been of great help to us. My hon. Friend did indeed recommend positive labelling some time ago, and he must be pleased that we have now moved towards that.
As to children's furniture, I hope that I have explained why we introduced the requirement about materials at the beginning. It was the simplest and quickest way of dealing with the problem. It has taken some time to get a BSI certificate for the furniture. The requirements for children's furniture will be extremely stringent, as it
316
applies to furniture for children under the age of 11, although it is usually used by much younger people. We are not referring to wooden high chairs and similar furniture.
I hope soon to be able to advance a standard for bedding and mattresses. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire referred to the lack of evidence of cigarette fires and smouldering. He must be aware of the commonness of the 2 am fire when someone has gone to bed smoking and has fallen asleep and the smouldering cigarette has set fire to the bedding. Surely the incidence of fires in regard to people who smoke and have a high rate of alcoholism is conclusive that that type of cause is relevant.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred to the responsibility for production. I hope soon to introduce proposals on general consumer safety. I hope that part of those proposals will be that the responsibility for production, major distribution and importing of dangerous goods will lie much more firmly on those people, rather than on shop traders. I hope that when those proposals come before the House, the hon. Gentleman will welcome them.
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Does that mean that the EC regulations for product liability will apply to foam production?
Dr. Vaughan: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until I introduce the proposals. The Department is also producing an illustrated handbook for the trade, as the regulations are difficult to understand in detail.
I hope that I have covered most of the points that hon. Members have raised. If I have not, I shall be glad to take them up afterwards personally and individually if hon. Members so wish. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth,. North (Mr. Griffiths) wanted progress. We want it too. He referred to toxic fumes. I was not sure whether he was thinking of the majority of cases where death or injury is due to suffocation and carbon monoxide poisoning—that is the common cause—or whether he was concerned about hydrogen cyanide which is much less significant as it comes from specific types of plastic. When he talks about using other materials, he should be aware that the fumes from wool, silk and nylon can all be toxic. I only say that to show how complicated it is to find an effective substitute.
I hope that I have covered all of the main points. The debate has been helpful. I know that it will be studied by the industry and I hope that the House will approve the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Upholstered Furniture (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.

Smith Houses
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this house do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
12.58 pm
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: My interest in this debate is as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Yardley. Coincidentally, I have qualifications in the profession of the land and am a fellow of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors and of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers. This is one occasion when those matters are coincidental and can help me to consider the background to the subject.
There has been substantial difficulty in Birmingham about Smith houses. Those houses were fully explained as long ago as 1948 in the post-war building studies No. 25, a house construcion report by an interdepartmental committee appointed by the Minister for Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Works. It stated that they were built by the Smith's Building System (Birmingham) Ltd., formerly British Steel Construction (Birmingham) Ltd. I understand that that company went bankrupt. The houses have foundations of reinforced concrete slab, thickened as necessary to form strip foundations. The walls are built of large factory-made units consisting of foamed slag concrete faced with burnt clay tails of the same face dimensions as stretcher bricks. These are moulded into a backing and fitted on site. The tails are 1¼ in thick and give no strength, and the block behind on the ground floor, the supporting wall of the house which is laid on the concrete slab—which is of foamed slag concrete—is only 6 in thick. That is 150 mm smaller than the scale rule.
That is the width of the block. That block on the first floor reduces to about 4 in or 100 mm thick.
This system came about as a result of pressure at the end of the war from Ministers to develop industrialised building systems to cope with the post-war bulge and to accommodate the returning members of the forces and those who desperately needed housing in that era. In Birmingham there are about 1,525 such houses. However, the number varies. In one letter that I received of 28 October the number was 1,525, but in a letter of 2 October it was 1,524, which could mean that one house had fallen down or been mislaid. However, the numbers were reduced. Those houses are predominantly in my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Spellar).
The city owns 970 houses, but the letters that I have received say that it could be 979. About 550 houses have been sold as a result of interest by the tenants of the corporation of Birmingham, who have bought the houses under either the city or the national scheme. In analysing the problems, I wish to pay tribute to the help that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, who has accompanied me to meetings with the chairman of the housing committee in Birmingham, who has met the association of owners, and who convened a meeting that was attended by the hon. Member for Northfield. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Northfield and the hon. Member for Stechford, who have been diligent and interested in this phenomena on behalf of their constituents, and who are alarmed about this matter, as am
318
I and my hon. Friend. We are alarmed because the situation has been complicated and the waters muddied. There has been structural trouble. Of those still in the city ownership, 84 have had remedial work completed or are in process of completion, and the number of properties in the 1983–84 remedial works programme is about 110, funded by the HIP and topped up by capital receipts. About £3 million was dedicated in the years 1982–83 and 1983–84 to refurbishing the properties by the council and the city of Birmingham.
I started to describe the walls of these properties. In the original prototype buildings there was no dampproof membrane in the supporting wall, although that was later altered, and one was fitted in the houses which developed from the prototype houses. At no time was a dampproof membrane put into the foamed cement slag floor of the house. The promoters claimed that it was unnecessary, as they believed that damp would not rise through the foamed slag concrete, which varies in thickness.
The junctions between the walls and partitions are made by recessing the units. The internal walls, which are like a jigsaw puzzle of blocks, which are put together and which have reinforced metal carrying handles and form an interweaving reinforcement of the block in the wall, are finished internally with lime putty and coated with plaster of Paris. They are reinforced horizontally with steel rods. I take issue with the Minister for Housing and Construction that they are not reinforced prefabricated concrete houses, because I and others consider that they are. It was interesting that they were omitted from the recent list of six houses of the prefabricated type scheduled for special investigation. I thank my hon. Friend for the information that we have been given today, that Smith houses are now to be the subject of investigation and that a report will be made on them.
These houses with their tapering walls—they are narrower at the top than at the bottom—lacked investigation in the first place. Even in 1948, the report says that no tests or calculations had been made by the Building Research Station on the strength and stability of the houses, but having regard to the thickness of the walls and the stiffening of the cross walls it thought that the efficiency would be satisfactory. Even in the prototype, the one that was built in Dangerfield lane, Wednesbury, it is said that
"a horizontal crack had developed in the staircase external wall and it is thought that this may be due to a slight spread of the roof at this point."
So even in the prototype in those far-off days, some 35 years ago, there was a crack.
"Dampness has been observed in the prototype at the base of the walls. The foamed slag concrete units were built into the walls and partitions in an immature condition, with the result that cracks had developed due to drying shrinkage."
I am quoting from the document that is available in the Library.
With regard to maintenance and durability it is mentioned that
"cracking is most noticeable on the ground floor party wall, where continuous vertical cracks, extending from floor to ceiling".
It then states that
"the possibility that the crack in the staircase wall is the result of structural movement cannot be overlooked".
Even in the prototype, the possibility of structural movement "cannot be overlooked". That is the basis of my plea to the Under-Secretary of State. I ask him to accept that these properties are subject to design failure, structural

319
inadequacy and structural movement. Their problems have not been caused just by the sulphate growth in the shale that was the underfill to the slab of the floor. That shale was believed to have come from the Coventry Deep colliery and to have been untreated. It had not been fully burnt off and thus in later years the shale was able to grow, and the walls heaved and bulged. The problems, however, are not due only to that growth; they have other causes too. In my view, the same symptoms could develop elsewhere in similar circumstances of ground movement. I believe that wind and suction tests were carried out yesterday by officials of the Department on houses in the area, and that various other tests have been carried out.
It is obvious that even at the prototype stage the houses were not considered adequate. It was recommended that the steel clamps that were used as ties between the walling units should receive adequate treatment.
According to the development group, the design was modified by the incorporation of a dampproof course into the walls, but not to the floor, although in the reinstatement work being carried out by the city of Birmingham no fewer than two dampproof membrane courses are being put into the floors of the council-owned properties where there were none already, because if water penetrates it will act upon any remaining sulphate. That is done after the whole depth of soil, sometimes to a depth of five or six feet, has been dug out to prevent the salts from developing and acting chemically.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this technical and possibly boring recital. The subject is not boring to my constituents, to my hon. Friend, or to the hon. Members who have had to deal with the pitiful cases of many tenants. I wrote to each of the 119 tenants concerned. I wrote several letters as the refurbishing progressed. I must congratulate the city of Birmingham on dealing with the anxieties point by point. Tenants were worried about whether their carpets would fit, whether their fittings could be replaced, and where their furniture would be stored. They were frightened about being decamped from the property for three months or more, and returning to it subsequently. They were worried about many things, but every point was dealt with.
We cannot give the same guarantees to the owners because they have not the same redress. I have therefore pressed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on previous occasions to make available to them the same facilities made available following the case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) in respect of Airey houses. That case was allowed because a structural design fault was found and a question of safety arose. Generous grants of 90 per cent. were made available to the owner-occupiers in that case. I therefore ask Ministers once again to consider this and to make the same generous Exchequer-funded grants to those who have purchased and who have no redress, to those who cannot get insurance, to those who wish to retire—they are all old and many have lived in the properties for more than 30 years—and to those who cannot retire and move because they cannot sell because even perfectly adequate properties are blighted by reputation. I therefore ask that the same scheme be made available to the owners of Smith houses because the same position obtains.
Timber window sashes were used and dampproof courses installed. I have had hundreds of letters from owners and tenants who were worried sick about this.
320
They have been patient and calm throughout the bewildering process of seeing properties decay and collapse around them. That is no exaggeration. There are different dimensions to the problem. There are houses that look, and virtually are, untouched, there are those that have cracks that must be dealt with, there are those that are in an extremely bad state, in which walls are moving and floors heaving, and some that are fit only for the bulldozer.
My constituents in the Radleys, Willaston Road, Hazeldene Road, Elmstead Avenue, Wensley Road, and Wychwood Crescent are perturbed if they have bought their homes. I received a letter today enjoining me to love my neighbour, saying that that was the greatest of all things. But it is difficult to love one's neighbour when £3,000 or more, and in some cases £10,000, is being spent on the neighbour's house because he is a tenant, when that house is being ripped apart and the support walls replaced and the owner of the adjoining house has to suffer all the noise of the pneumatic drills ripping the floor up, and when, as Mrs. Wright of the Radleys says, water used to mix cement in the tenanted house under repair washes through the wall causing dampness and damage to carpets. It is difficult to love one's neighbour when that neighbour is having two damp courses put in so that the water shifts underneath to the owner-occupied house next door. It is difficult to be a good neighbour when the insurance company that always comes round after the fire to offer a caravan refuses to underwrite the insurance in this case.
Time does not permit me to mention all the design faults—in the thicknesses, the blocks, the movement of the blocks, the tensile life of the concrete and many other matters. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the basic human and moral problems involved. It is not just a case of let purchaser beware. It could involve patent law. It involves that which is discernible to the eye and that which is not discernible. The houses are traditional in appearance, and many assume that they are so. I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that whatever is necessary to be done, is done. There should be remuneration. If necessary, we should have a mini Falklands campaign in housing refurbishment. These, and other houses could be refurbished and people could be employed.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider the proposition put to him, I understand, by the city of Birmingham. It is prepared to undertake the work, to apply for special repair grants and to get the 90 per cent. grant available. I hope that the Minister will consider that or any other feasible option. I ask him to consider our constituents, who are in a difficult plight.
1.20 am
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) for raising this topic and giving us the benefit of his technical skills in explaining the real problems facing his constituents. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), in his place. He has been in constant contact with me and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on this issue. I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis), who has also been championing his constituents' case.

321
The three hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Spellar), had a meeting earlier this afternoon with me and my hon. Friend the Minister. They made it quite clear to us that there are a great many people who have bought Smith houses from Birmingham city council, who are now desperately anxious because of the serious cracks that have appeared in the walls of their houses. No one could have done more to further the interests of their constituents than those four hon. Members. Of course the Government fully understand the anxiety of those families and their wish to see this matter resolved as soon as practicable. My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley has taken us through the history, and I shall not repeat it.
Initially it was felt that the problem was confined to the shale fill under the foundations, but more recent investigations by the city council suggest that the problem is not restricted to that. Some cracking has been found in the walls where there is no apparent movement of the foundations. It seems that large blocks of the type of which the Smith house is constructed are very sensitive to stress from whatever source, whether it be movement of the foundations or thermal or moisture movement. The precise cause of the problem, and the remedial works appropriate to any particular case, have not yet been clearly established.
The problem is not, on present evidence, related to the deterioration of reinforced concrete because of carbonation of the concrete or the presence of chlorides, as has been found, for example, in Airey and Orlit houses. But the Smith house is unusual and the problem is technically complex, and we have therefore asked the Building Research Establishment to examine the technical evidence and to identify the cause of the cracking that has now been found.
The House will inderstand that the BRE's investigation, which will involve inspection of houses on site, will take some time to complete, but we shall make available the findings of that investigation as soon as it is completed and as soon as we have sufficient information to be confident technically about the results. I know that every day that goes by prolongs the anxiety for private owners who cannot, with confidence, invest in the maintenance, improvement or repair of their property, who may not know what, if any, repair is required, and who, if they wanted to move, might find the property unsaleable. But before the right course of action can be agreed, we have to have the technical facts of the matter. The problem is complex and it is in everyone's interests to await the BRE's considered appraisal of the problem rather than proceed now with action that might, with hindsight, prove ill-advised.
I know that Birmingham city council is already engaged on its own appraisal of the problem and the Building Research Establishment will be working closely with the city council in its investigation. I know, too, that Birmingham city council is sympathetic to the problems faced by owner-occupiers and is prepared to help them in a variety of ways. For example, I gather that where repair is required in some cases the city may be willing to include an owner-occupier's house in its own programme of repair on the basis that the costs will be reimbursed and that the
322
city would temporarily rehouse an owner-occupier in a rented property if he had to leave his home while the repair works were in progress.
My hon. Friend pressed me on the possible extension of the scheme that we brought in for private owners of Airey houses. I hope that he understands that I cannot today add to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in the House on 8 February. On the evidence available, the combination of circumstances that exist in the Smith houses are not the same as those that were thought to justify financial assistance for owners of Airey houses, but we shall carefully consider the findings of the current investigation into the Smith houses and assess their implications as soon as possible.
Mr. Bevan: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to tell me when the information will be available to us so that we may consider its implications?
Sir George Young: We hope that the exercise that I described a few minutes ago might be completed by May. As my hon. Friend the Minister said in the meeting this afternoon, we shall take steps to make the information available to interested parties as soon as we have it in a suitable form. We understand the urgency and the anxiety of owners to see the problem resolved.
I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley that we are worried about what is happening in Birmingham, that the technical investigation is now under way and that we have the matter in hand. Ministers will take whatever action is felt to be necessary as soon as possible. We shall, of course, keep informed those hon. Members who represent Birmingham.
Mr. Terry Davis: Before the Minister finishes will he bear in mind the fact that two other groups are affected; not only those owner-occupiers whose houses are showing signs of cracking, damp or stress but those who have been affected even though their houses appear to be perfectly all right because they are having great difficulty in selling their homes? They are tied to their homes in Birmingham and that can be very distressing if they want to move to other parts of Britain—for example, for employment.
Secondly, there is a problem with the city council because it would be unfair if the council tenants in the rest of Birmingham were forced to pay for the cost of the necessary works on the council-owned properties if the owner-occupiers were compensated. That would be inequitable as between tenants and owner-occupiers. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will bear in mind the interests of all groups?
Sir George Young: Of course, there are financial consequences to the city council if it has to carry out a programme of repair and improvement. We should take that into account in the HIP allocation for Birmingham city council next year. The incidence of these houses is relatively small compared with the overall stock of local authority accommodation in Birmingham, so I hope that the impact will not be devastating. However, we shall bear all points in mind. There is a blight on the properties and we should have to address ourselves to that when we decided what, if any, scheme ought to be introduced. It is the owners of those properties that we are most worried about.

323
It being 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.
324
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past One o' clock.

SCOTLAND
  Air Traffic Control Services
  Air Traffic Control Services
  Schoolchildren (Suspension Notices)
  Schoolchildren (Suspension Notices)
  Police
  Police
  National Mobility Scheme
  National Mobility Scheme
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
HOME DEPARTMENT
  VHF Band II Planning Conference
  VHF Band II Planning Conference
  Solicitors Act 1974
  Solicitors Act 1974
  Drug Toxicity
  Drug Toxicity
  Police
  Police
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
ENERGY
  Energy Prices
  Energy Prices
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  North Sea (Foreign Nationals)
  North Sea (Foreign Nationals)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Windscale (Radioactive Contamination)
  Windscale (Radioactive Contamination)
ENVIRONMENT
  Commons Commissioners
  Commons Commissioners
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Lending
  Local Authority Lending
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Local Government Act 1972
  Local Government Act 1972
  London Labour Leaders
  London Labour Leaders
  Boundary Commission for England
  Boundary Commission for England
  Welwyn and Hatfield Council (Manpower)
  Welwyn and Hatfield Council (Manpower)
  House Building (Timber Frames)
  House Building (Timber Frames)
  Jewel Tower, Westminster
  Jewel Tower, Westminster
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
  Pentachlorophenol
  Pentachlorophenol
  Local Authority (Expenditure Powers) Bill
  Local Authority (Expenditure Powers) Bill
TRANSPORT
  Hoverspeed
  Hoverspeed
  Capital Investment Projects
  Capital Investment Projects
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Deaf Drivers
  Deaf Drivers
  Rail Services (Cumbria)
  Rail Services (Cumbria)
  Motor Cyclists (Tests)
  Motor Cyclists (Tests)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Sideguards)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Sideguards)
  London Transport (Pensioners Concessions)
  London Transport (Pensioners Concessions)
  Rail Services (Grants)
  Rail Services (Grants)
  Land Compensation (Birmingham)
  Land Compensation (Birmingham)
  Pelican Crossings (Accidents)
  Pelican Crossings (Accidents)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Welsh Language Forms
  Welsh Language Forms
  Welsh School of Medicine
  Welsh School of Medicine
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  University Students
  University Students
  Jerusalem (Ministerial Visit)
  Jerusalem (Ministerial Visit)
DEFENCE
  Submarines
  Submarines
  Jetstream 31
  Jetstream 31
  Port Stanley Airport
  Port Stanley Airport
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Polaris Force
  Polaris Force
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Widow's Pension
  Widow's Pension
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Defence Sales
  Defence Sales
  Serving Officer (Foreign Service)
  Serving Officer (Foreign Service)
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  Glasgow (Defence Jobs)
  Glasgow (Defence Jobs)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Newbury
  Newbury
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Crime Reduction
  Crime Reduction
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
  Mr. Joshua Nkomo
  Mr. Joshua Nkomo
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing (Insulation)
  Housing (Insulation)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Solicitors Act 1974
  Solicitors Act 1974
  Houses (Compulsory Registration)
  Houses (Compulsory Registration)
  Land Registration
  Land Registration
  Land Registry
  Land Registry
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Arms Control (Outer Space)
  Arms Control (Outer Space)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Lamb (Hormone Tests)
  Lamb (Hormone Tests)
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Bass
  Bass
INDUSTRY
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Departmental Initiatives (Advertising Expenditure)
  Departmental Initiatives (Advertising Expenditure)
  London (Post Office Boundaries)
  London (Post Office Boundaries)
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
TRADE
  L. Landers Ltd.
  L. Landers Ltd.
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Aviation Facilities
  Aviation Facilities
  Microlight Aircraft
  Microlight Aircraft
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Bed Reductions, Manchester
  Hospital Bed Reductions, Manchester
  Greenfield Report
  Greenfield Report
  Consultant Posts
  Consultant Posts
  NHS Staff (Pay)
  NHS Staff (Pay)
  Addenbrooke's Hospital (Private Contractors)
  Addenbrooke's Hospital (Private Contractors)
  Disability Organisations (Financial Support)
  Disability Organisations (Financial Support)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital
  Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital
  Benefit Officers (Birkenhead)
  Benefit Officers (Birkenhead)
  Elderly Persons (Residential Houses)
  Elderly Persons (Residential Houses)
  Washwood Heath Local Office
  Washwood Heath Local Office
  Generic Drugs (Research and Development)
  Generic Drugs (Research and Development)
  Nebulisers
  Nebulisers
  NHS (Private Contractors)
  NHS (Private Contractors)
  Disabled Persons (Access Facilities)
  Disabled Persons (Access Facilities)
WALES
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Kidney Diseases
  Kidney Diseases
  Easter Holiday Projects (Grants)
  Easter Holiday Projects (Grants)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
EMPLOYMENT
  Archaeologists
  Archaeologists
  Long-term Unemployed
  Long-term Unemployed
  Employment Discrimination
  Employment Discrimination
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  L. Landers Ltd.
  L. Landers Ltd.
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Unemployment Statistics (West Midlands)
  Unemployment Statistics (West Midlands)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Leedale v. Lewis
  Leedale v. Lewis
  Wife's Earnings Allowance
  Wife's Earnings Allowance
  Microcomputers
  Microcomputers
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Educational Courses (VAT)
  Educational Courses (VAT)
  Sydenham Airport, Belfast
  Sydenham Airport, Belfast
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Charities Covenants
  Charities Covenants
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Local Authorities (Borrowings)
  Local Authorities (Borrowings)
  Government Departments and Health Authorities (Private Contracting Work)
  Government Departments and Health Authorities (Private Contracting Work)

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

Proprietary Drugs and Generic Substitution
Lord Kilmarnock: 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 will implement the recommendation contained in paragraph 24 of the Greenfield Report on Effective Prescribing, whereby doctors would be required to indicate a positive preference for the proprietary version of a drug and, in the absence of such indication, the pharmacist would be expected to dispense the "generic" version when this exists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked for comments on the report from interested organisations by 15th April. We shall not be making any decision on this or the report's other recommendations until we have had time to consider the comments we receive.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is taking the report seriously, may I ask him whether he is aware of an experiment which has been operating at Abbots Langley for the last four years, in which the generic system was run on a voluntary basis and where it was calculated that the saving to the National Health Service was over £6,000 in one pharmacy alone, and that this, extrapolated nationwide, would produce a saving of some £40 million?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is very unwise to extrapolate the results of such very limited experiments as the one to which the noble Lord refers, because the results of wide-spread generic substitution, as it is called, would certainly result in an upward trend in the prices of drugs covered by patent for which no generic substitute exists. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will not take too much guidance from the kind of information that he has given to your Lordships. Having said that, we are, as the noble Lord recognises, considering this matter carefully and will announce our conclusions in due course.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, while it is true that considerable savings can be made on drugs in the National Health Service, would not the noble Lord agree that it is somewhat dangerous to leave the responsibility to pharmacists when doctors should
1454
have the responsibility of prescribing either the proprietary drug or its equivalent? That responsibility should not be left to pharmacists, because in some instances it would be a tremendous risk to take.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a perfectly respectable point of view but it is not necesssarily one which is universally shared. It is worth saying that pharmacists are highly qualified in their own profession. If some way forward along these lines were to be decided upon, pharmacists would be well qualified to follow that course.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that pharmacists in hospital dispensaries are entitled to make the substitution from proprietary to generic drugs? Is my noble friend further aware that there was a television programme on the National Health Service, hosted by Brian Walden, which showed not just figures of savings from an extrapolation of £6,000 but figures of savings very similar to those given by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, which could be made to the National Health Service drugs bill?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have seen some of the programmes to which my noble friend refers and I have to say that these calculations rely upon a number of assumptions which are not necessarily proven in practice. As for hospitals, the position is that by agreement between doctors and medical staff in hospitals, generic substitution is practised to a considerable extent. But the circumstances are rather different. For example, doctors in hospitals are aware of precisely which generic substitute is to be dispensed in any particular case.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is a wary eye also kept on the prices charged by drugs manufacturers?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, indeed, my Lords, We are at present reviewing the Pharmaceutical Prices Regulation Scheme.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister if he is in a position to say whether the profit to the pharmacist is greater on proprietary brands than on generic drugs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this tends to vary from pharmacy to pharmacy. It depends upon the price at which the pharmacist purchases his supplies. Generally speaking, he is reimbursed at a standard rate and is free to buy his supplies, provided they are from a reputable source, at the best price he can get.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Lord know of any case where the prioprietary version is superior to the generic version?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the whole purpose of this system is to establish a range of generic substitutes which are just as good as and, indeed, identical to the standard version. But the difficulty is that the standard versions are generally covered by patent. The generic substitutes cannot come into use until the patent expires.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is the noble Lord fully aware of the commercial pressure on doctors which exists? May I ask him whether he has read the minutes of a meeting on 14th October, 1982 of the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry in which the industry itself showed considerable signs of acute embarrassment about its own promotional excesses?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware of some anxiety on the point which the noble Lord raises. This is a matter for the pharmaceutical companies themselves. It is also for the doctors to ensure that they are not misled by any excessive or misleading advertising.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that on many occasions doctors welcome visits from pharmaceutical salesmen since they are the source of information about the latest developments?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure that is true, but I guess there is a difference between the sort of informative visits to which my noble friend refers and the excessive advertising and publicity junkets which have recently been the source of some publicity.

Argentina: Licensed Supplies of Armaments
2.43 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 quantity and types of armaments, licensed by them, left this country for the Argentine during March 1982.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, shipments under specific licences of supplies for military use amounted to about £1.1 million. They included arms and ammunition, military radio equipment, computers and spares for various types of military equipment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister recall from the Franks Report that in the first few days of March, 1982, our representative in Buenos Aires warned the Foreign Office that there might be landings on the islands, that the Prime Minister asked for contingency plans, and that the Foreign Office warned the Governor of the Falklands that we were perilously near confrontation? Would he tell the House whether it is true that on 19th March, at Sheerness, an Argentinian ship loaded military supplies made by British Manufacture and Research Limited in Grantham; that on 25th March an Argentinian Air Force jet left Stansted Airport with military supplies; and that on 29th March an Argentinian airliner flew out of Heathrow loaded with military spares, all of these licensed by the Government?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned,
1456
perhaps I might read to him the conclusion of the Franks Committee, which is as follows:
"We believe that our account demonstrates conclusively that the Government had no reason to believe before 31st March that an invasion of the Falkland Islands would take place at the beginning of April."
I think that disposes of the noble Lord's first point.
So far as his other points are concerned, the total shipments, as I have said, amounted to £1.1 million, which in this area is a relatively small sum of money. It is not the practice to give details of individual export licences.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is continuing concern about the supply of arms to the Argentine? Is it the case that since last summer 17 Mirage fighter bombers have been supplied to the Argentine? Is he aware, also, that four warships with Rolls-Royce engines have been supplied to the Argentine, bought with money which the Argentine, of all countries, cannot afford? Could he say what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to our allies, the United States and others, such as France and Germany, who are supplying these armaments, especially in the light of the fact that the Argentine have not declared the cessation of the state of war with this country?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we share the noble Lord's concern at the supply of arms to the Argentine by third countries. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made these views known very forcibly on a number of occasions.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Secretary of State accept that the implication of the finding of the Franks Committee that the Government had no reason to expect an Argentine invasion at the beginning of April is that they did have reason to expect an Argentine invasion at some time thereafter? Would the noble Lord also agree that even two months before an invasion is no time to be selling £1 million worth of goods to the enemy?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has not quite understood the chronoiogy. The Franks Report says there was no reason to suppose that an invasion would be made up to 31st March. The invasion took place on 2nd April, which is a matter of three days after that date.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in the world as it is, and not the world as we might like it to be, the Argentine will in the future, as it has in the past, buy modern arms from our industrial competitors, if not from ourselves? Would my noble friend also agree that no criticism should attach to the Labour Administration of 1970 for signing a large contract for destroyers and modern weapons for supply to the Argentine, because in fact we at least knew exactly what those arms would do when the regrettable conflict took place?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I appreciate the points made by my noble friend. I wish to make it clear that there is, and remains, a complete ban on the supply of armaments from this country.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the enormous debt of the Argentine has recently been restructured and that British interests have participated in that restructuring? Would it not be possible to ensure that the restructuring of international debts of such countries is made conditional on none of the additional credits being made available for armaments?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the position here is that the loans were made by the IMF. We are members of the IMF, but of course we do not ourselves actually run the IMF. It is a joint international body in which a large number of countries are represented. It has always been the policy of the IMF not to attach political conditions to its loans. Nevertheless, the conditions attached on economic and budgetary grounds would make it less likely, and not more likely, that the Argentine would have money to spend on armaments.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that most of the supplementary questions, except that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper which refers to March and not to other months?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, while I entirely agree with my noble friend I have been endeavouring to answer the questions which have been put because the answer in most instances is perfectly straightforward.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, if the Minister takes the attitude, as he does, of a kind of indifference about supplying arms to Argentina even only a fortnight before hostilities started in April last year, is it unreasonable that noble Lords should express concern about events since? In the light of the cold and clinical disdain of the Prime Minister when the Franks Report was debated in another place, is it not inconsistent that her policy allows not only the sale of arms to Argentina but also the means to pay for them? Were there no safeguards in the IMF loan? After all, I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer was for a time chairman of the meetings which took place and we could have sought safeguards from our allies to ensure that British forces in the Argentine did not meet with weapons supplied by their own country.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's comments about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister are entirely unjustified and completely inaccurate. None of us has shown any indifference in this matter at all. I have made it perfectly clear that there is and remains a total embargo on the supply of armaments from this country to the Argentine. As regards the IMF, we must operate within the terms of the IMF rules and these I have explained in reply to an earlier supplementary question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, are we to understand from the series of answers that my noble friend has given that while Britain has a clean bill of health, as it clearly has on this matter, we are somewhat disappointed that some of our allies, indeed our partners in Europe, do not seem to have quite the same attitude to this matter?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely understand the point made by my noble friend. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made his views on this matter very plain to the Governments concerned.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not nonetheless disquieting, irrespective of party, that this country provided much of the means whereby not only Argentine but British servicemen were killed and injured? Does the noble Lord not agree that it is high time that the international arms trade was brought under more effective control?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I would not accept the innuendo in the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. So far as the second part of his question is concerned, I appreciate that he believes there should not be any international trade in arms. That is a point of view held by a number of people. It is not held by the majority of people, and certainly not held on these Benches.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it the view of the Government that the international trade in arms should not be carried on with countries which persistently and brutally reject human rights?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we do apply restrictions on the supply of arms to countries by reference to breaches of human rights.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with the greatest respect, the original Answer which the noble Lord gave me did not deal with the specific question which I put to him. May I ask him again: is it correct that the Franks Report, whatever its final conclusions might be, exposed the fact that at the beginning of March the Foreign Office here told the Governor of the Falklands,
"We are now perilously near confrontation"?
If that is correct, is it not the case that the arms that were sent from this country during the following few weeks were the arms that were used to kill British men in the Falkland Islands? May I ask whether the Minister has read the Written Answer of the Prime Minister in another place on 14th March which contradicts the last part of his Answer to me by giving specific details of flights from this country to the Argentine during the period that I have questioned?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have, of course, a copy of my right honourable friend's reply in front of me. It starts by saying:
"There is no evidence in official records that the arms which the honourable Member describes were exported on the flights in question. If he has any relevant information, I will arrange for the matter to be further investigated".—[Official Report, Commons 14/3/83; col. 24.]
The Prime Minister then gave certain information about the export of arms on certain flights and those figures were specifically included in the figures that I quoted to the noble Lord in reply to his Question on the Order Paper. So far as the Franks Committee is concerned, the important thing is the verdict to which the Franks Committee came, and that verdict was as I have read out to the noble Lord.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, might there be time for a question from the Cross Benches?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have spent 19 minutes on the first two Questions and I should have thought it would be right and the wish of the House that we now move on to the next Question.

Broadcasting Complaints Commission
2.57 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the cost of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission since its introduction in 1981.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the available information about the commission's expenditure relates to the year ending 31st March, 1982 and is contained in its first annual report. In that year the commission's net expenditure was £97,956. Details for 1982–83 will be contained in its second annual report later this year.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he could tell the House how many complaints have been investigated during the first two years of the commission's existence? If the number of complaints is not great, would my noble friend consider whether it is because too few people who feel that they have been individually unfairly treated know of the existence of the commission and the manner in which they can report their anxieties to it? Would it not be in the general interest that rather more publicity be given to this estimable organisation?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am happy to assist my noble friend in giving publicity to the commission, the first annual report of which shows that, of the complaints it received during the period 1st June 1981 to 31st March 1982, 23 fell within its jurisdiction. Of those, six were still before the commission at the end of the period.
As to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, the commission's function is to consider and adjudicate upon complaints of unjust and unfair treatment in broadcast programmes and of unwarranted infringement of privacy in programmes or in their preparation. The Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to extend the commission's jurisdiction to the consideration of complaints about general programme standards. The broadcasting authorities are responsible for maintaining proper standards, and it would unacceptably weaken their authority if their decisions were to be subject to review.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the BBC rather carelessly
1460
published a photograph of me as Master of the Rolls and I telephoned to complain, I received no answer?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I imagine that if the mistake had been less flattering to the noble Lord he would have proceeded to submit his complaint in writing.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, was there a complaint from the Master of the Rolls?
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether it is within the terms of reference of the commission to deal with complaints as to the publication of views about proceedings in Parliament?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the complaints in question relate to individual cases, and if my noble friend has a complaint as to the frequency or manner in which publicity has or has not been given to his own pronouncements it would be proper for him to approach the commission. Otherwise, I cannot help him.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, my noble friend's answer suggests that the commission is not overworked if it looks at two complaints every month. I wonder, therefore, whether it would perhaps be wise to develop its terms of reference a little so that we could make sure that in the coming weeks it is not only the minority view of the CND which is put over on the BBC and through other media but that the majority view of this country—those who believe in general and multilateral nuclear disarmament—should also be given fair treatment?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the remit of the commission relates to individual complaints. I should have thought that, this year, we might have an increase of the volume of one-twelfth in response to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier. But if the remit is to be expanded to deal with questions of balance, then there is a difficulty in that it will overlap with that of the corporation and the authority. I will, however, take my noble friend's concern to my right honourable friend.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that the commission was established as the result of representations made in this House of Parliament and in the other place? But is it not also a fact that the terms of reference are much more limited than was required or asked for in this House? In the light of experience, would it not be a good thing to look at them again?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the remit is set out in Part III and Schedule 7 to the Act of 1981. I cannot answer for the exchanges which took place in this House before they were enacted or, indeed, at the time of their enactment. I think I can add nothing to what I have already said as to the potential conflict between the role of the commission and the role of the corporation and the authority, beyond saying that I will also draw the concern of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend's attention.
Lord Annan: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, possibly because of the remit, certain people think that the remit is entirely what it should be, and that it would be deplored if this remit was re-examined and extended? Would the noble Lord also accept that possibly the small number of complaints which have been received by this commission may reflect some credit on the BBC and the commerial companies which broadcast?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, which will give a greater balance to the submissions I give to my right honourable friend.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is not a main feature of the commission that it has some independence from the corporation and the authority? Therefore, is it not a perfectly proper organisation for members of the public to write to with complaints about balance and standards?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it would be if it was part of their remit to look at that. That is the question I have been asked to consider.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time for a Tuesday of 7.30 p.m.

Business of the House
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 34 and paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to the Standing Orders shall apply to the Motion in the name of the Lord Taylor of Gryfe set down on Wednesday 13th April.—(Baroness Young)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Public Records (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Teviot: 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 Teviot.)
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate my noble friend on the speedy passage of this Bill through the House and wish him—or, rather, the Bill—every success in another place. I should like
1462
to remind the House of what I said at Second Reading. My noble friend has thoughtfully left the timing of implementation open. I then made it clear that the Bill could not come into force as soon as it was passed. A financial study is under way, but no funds have yet been allocated; nor has a location been found for housing the records. But I am very grateful to my noble friend for the help which he has given to the House and for the service he has rendered to the public in promoting this legislation.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for those unexpected comments at this stage, and I take note of all that he says.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I thank very much my noble and learned friend who in the past has given me assurance, especially in 1979, and also the noble and learned Lord the previous Lord Chancellor. This is a very happy day for me, and I thank your Lordships very much.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Teviot.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

British Shipbuilders Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Modification of British Shipbuilders' functions]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: Since the Lord Chairman has ruled that if Amendment No. 1 is not carried—
Lord Aberdare: Is carried.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he was moving the Second Reading of this Bill, dealt with the reasons why Section 2 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 should cease to have effect. It will be recalled that Section 2 of the 1977 Act imposes

1463
certain duties on British Shipbuilders. At Section 2(2) it is stated:
"It shall be the duty of British Shipbuilders to promote and secure the promotion by its wholly owned subsidiaries of—

(a) the efficient and economical design, development, production, sale, repair and maintenance of ships and slow speed diesel marine engines; and

(b) research into matters relating thereto".

The way the noble Lord presented this on Second Reading was that it somehow represented a liberation of British Shipbuilders—a relief of the onerous obligation to have a duty. When members of Her Majesty's Government come saying that they want to liberate a public corporation from certain inhibitions, your Lordships must forgive me if I am slightly suspicious of it. It is not normally the attitude, particularly of Her Majesty's present Government, to want to liberate public corporations. I am very curious indeed to see why this step has been carried out.
It will be recalled that the party opposite lays very heavy emphasis indeed on the necessity for people to have duties and responsibilities, as well as certain rights. In more recent years there have been many endeavours to emphasise to the public at large, as well as to corporations, that under a democracy they have not only rights but also duties. There is nothing particularly wrong in a corporation having a specific duty. One of the purposes behind the founding of the original public corporations was that they should not be seen to be merely the creatures of Government or any Government department. The whole idea of the public corporation was that it should have a statutory status all its own, and for the present Government to seek to take away the duties of this particular corporation—British Shipbuilders—must be seen to be in sharp contrast to the original philosophy behind its setting up.
Your Lordships' Committee will recall that in the Electricity Act 1957, for example, duties of a general character were laid upon the Central Electricity Generating Board, and under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 duties were laid upon the coal industry. In such legislation the same phrase is always used: "Charged with the duties of …". I do not think that I should be exaggerating if I were to say that the chairmen of such corporations regard the fact that their coporations are charged with a specific duty, or a series of general duties, as being the bulwark of their independence.
It is quite true that in the 1977 Act the corporation itself is protected against proceedings in the courts. Section 2(10) of the 1977 Act states:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing upon either Corporation"—
the other corporation referred to is British Aerospace—
"directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court".
Why therefore should it now be necessary to eliminate the duties as such?
One explanation given by the noble Lord during Second Reading was that the revised form in which the coporation is given powers, subject in certain circumstances to the direction of the Secretary of State, as distinct from duties, is to enable it to embark upon joint ventures. That was the term that was used. If one
1464
looks at Clause 1(3) of the new Bill, one finds that specific permission is given. The subsection states:
"and British Shipbuilders may also promote the carrying on of any of those activities to such extent as it thinks fit by other persons none of whom need be a wholly owned subsidiary of British Shipbuilders".
I take it that it is upon those words that the noble Lord relies for giving British Shipbuilders powers to embark upon joint ventures, once the Bill has passed. However I really cannot believe that. I accept the noble Lord's assurances in good faith, but if one turns back to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, one finds that Section 3(1)(b) states that the corporation may carry on
"with the consent of, or in accordance with the terms of any general authority given by the Secretary of State any other activities to which the consent or authority relates".
Therefore it is quite clear that the power existed even under the old Act of 1977, and in that Act there was nothing that would have prevented British Shipbuilders from participating in joint ventures. To put no finer point on it, I would add that Section 3(2)(c) of the 1977 Act states that the corporation has power
"to enter into partnerships with other persons …".
It is a very fine point. A joint venture is of course a partnership between people for the exercise of a specific function, not necessarily for a certain duration of time. I believe that it is beyond doubt to think that a joint venture would not come under Section 3 of the old Act, taking together the two subsections that I have quoted.
That brings me back to the question of why at this stage the Government wish to eliminate the statutory duties of the corporation; and I wish to put forward another possible explanation. I believe that the use of the term "duty" in the 1977 Act gives British Shipbuilders a degree of independence sufficient to enable it to resist any efforts to mutilate the industry by—to use the colloquial term—"flogging off" vital parts of it. The Government are quite bent on the dismemberment of British Shipbuilders, and indeed have made no secret of their intention, once the time is propitious, to dispose possibly of its warships division, or at any rate a significant part of that division. Therefore, it seems to me that had it been allowed to remain, the word "duty" might have given the chairman of British Shipbuilders sufficient grounds for resisting any endeavours to mutilate the corporation on the basis that they were likely to impinge upon the general duty entrusted to him by Parliament.
It may well be that that is not the case, but I should have thought that it was far better to leave public corporations independent of the Government, with a direct duty imposed by statute. I am firmly of the opinion that the reasons that I have given for the elimination of the duties are valid, and what the Government are really afraid of is that the chairman of British Shipbuilders will take advantage of the 1977 Act in resisting the mutilation to which I have referred. That is why the Government desire to eliminate the duties, and for our part we believe that they should remain. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I have also

1465
studied with interest what he said on Second Reading. It is important that British Shipbuilders should be freed from the constraints of the existing legislation to which the noble Lord referred. It is plainly absurd, in our view, that at present British Shipbuilders could be prevented from withdrawing from an activity when it considered it commercially desirable to do so. Repealing Section 2 of the 1977 Act will free British Shipbuilders to choose whether to engage in activities that it is at present obliged by statute to undertake. This is a freedom that the corporation's international competitors enjoy and which the amendment proposed by the noble Lord seeks to deny.
The noble Lord talked further about duties and also referred to Section 3. It is true that British Shipbuilders has very wide powers under Section 3 of the 1977 Act to form businesses and joint ventures and to sell off holdings in wholly-owned subsidiaries. But those powers have to be exercised within all the limitations imposed by the Act, particularly the strict duties imposed by Section 2, such as the duty to promote the mainstream activities of the wholly-owned subsidiaries.
That is one general fundamental restriction. There is another. The existing Act does not contemplate mainstream activities being carried on by partly-owned subsidiaries. As a result, short, perhaps, of distress sales to keep the rest of the mainstream business going, British Shipbuilders is not able to participate in a normal commercial way with the private sector in shipbuilding ventures except in peripheral activities that are not covered by Section 2 duties. What we seek to do is to get rid of the essentially nationalising flavour of the old Act and open the way for flexible arrangements with private enterprise. The noble Lord and the Government are clearly widely at odds on this issue. This was made plain by the noble Lord at Second Reading. Repeal of Section 2 will enable British Shipbuilders to act in its best interests. I must therefore ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to Section 3(3) of the 1977 Act, where he will find that the corporation can dispose of any of its wholly-owned subsidiaries with the permission of the Secretary of State. The duties given in the old Act and set out in Section 2 did not act as an effective bar to British Shipbuilders ceasing any of its activities. It is clearly stated in Section 3 that, provided the Secretary of State consents, it can stop. The noble Lord may say that the application to the Secretary of State itself imposes a responsibility. As the Bill installs a whole new series of directions by the Secretary of State which the Secretary of State may give to British Shipbuilders, this seems to be small in comparison. The same is true of other sections. Section 3 states:
"Subject to subsection (3) below, each Corporation shall have power to enter into partnerships with other persons".
If the noble Lord examines the Interpretation Act 1978, he will find that the term "person" includes corporate bodies. So there is no reason why there should not be joint activity. I am afraid that the explanation does not hold.
Lord Glenarthur: I should like briefly to respond to the noble Lord on Section 3. The noble Lord has
1466
possibly not realised that all of British Shipbuilders powers in Section 3 are subject to duties imposed in Section 2.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The explanations given by the noble Lord are not satisfactory, as he must know. There is no reason at all why British Shipbuilders under the old Act, subject in some instances to the approval of the Secretary of State, could not do anything that it wished to do within its general objects. I have the gravest misgiving, for the reasons I have stated, about eliminating the word "duty" in this instance. The noble Lord gave some clue about it in his last intervention when he was careful to point out that under the old Act the provisions of Section 3 were strictly within the provisions of the section imposing the duty. Therefore, he must regard the duty as being a bar of some kind to his own department. I regret that we have to press the amendment.
3.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 104

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Amulree, L.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Aylestone, L.

McNair, L.

Banks, L.

Milford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Birk, B.

Oram, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Peart, L.

Blease, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Plant, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Byers, L.

Rhodes, L.

Chitnis, L.

Rochester, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Collison, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Serota, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Denington, B.

Simon, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ezra, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Glenamara, L.

Underhill, L.

Grey, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Walston, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Willis, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Beloff, L.

Aldenham, L.

Belstead, L.

Allerton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

1467

Cathcart, E.

Long, V.

Chelwood, L.

Loudoun, C.

Clancarty, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McFadzean, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Mansfield, E.

Craigavon, V.

Margadale, L.

Craigton, L.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Daventry, V.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Mills, V.

De La Warr, E.

Molson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Derwent, L.

Northchurch, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dulverton, L.

Onslow, E.

Eccles, V.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Elton, L.

Polwarth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Porritt, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Stamp, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray, L.

Sudeley, L.

Greenway, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Terrington, L.

Hayter, L.

Teviot, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Trenchard, V.

Inglewood, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kilmany, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Westbury, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wise, L.

Lindsey of Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9) and (10) of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. The reason for tabling this amendment is to secure a reversal of the decision by the Government to eliminate Section 2(8) of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, which reads:
"In carrying out its functions under this Act, it shall be the duty of each Corporation to promote industrial democracy in a strong and organic form in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries".
It was claimed by the noble Lord opposite that one of the functions of the new Bill was to eliminate the responsibilities of the corporation in regard to its commitment to promote industrial democracy. That is something with which we on this side of the Committee most profoundly disagree.
It seems a long time now since the Bullock Report was debated in your Lordships' House; and even on
1468
that occasion, when the party opposite addressed itself to the problem, "it came to bury Bullock, not to praise him". In other words, the party opposite has never done anything else but express its distaste of any form of the promotion of industrial democracy in industry in this country, and this despite the experience of our fellow members in the European Community. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I refer to paragraph 13 of the Bullock Report. It says:
"As part of a general movement to involve employees more effectively in decision-making, some eight countries in Western Europe now have schemes of one kind or another in operation which secure or at least make possible the representation of employees on company boards. It is now 25 years since Mitbestimmung (co-determination) was introduced in the Federal Republic of Germany. This year has seen further steps to increase the proportion of employee representatives on the supervisory boards of companies employing more than 2,000 people. In Sweden, 1976 has also seen confirmation of the three-year experiment in putting employee representatives on company boards. The fact that the West German and Swedish economies, despite differences between the social philosophies of the two countries, have been among the most successful in the world—not least in avoiding the industrial conflict which has cost Britain so dear—has not excaped notice".
Then in the conclusion of the Bullock Report noble Lords will recall that at paragraph 15 it says:
"First, we believe that there is a widespread recognition in this country of what the EEC Green Paper has called 'the democratic imperative' for employee participation, described in that document as follows: 'those who will be substantially affected by decisions made by social and political institutions must be involved in the making of those decisions'".
The debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House and indeed, in another place, and in the country at large, have shown that there is considerable disagreement as to what form industrial democracy should take. There is even division within, for example, certain sections of the trade union movement as to what form industrial democracy might take. So far as I understand it, there are variations of views in both the Liberal Party and, indeed, our own party on this matter. But one thing upon which I think we have all been agreed is that some progress must be made towards industrial democracy. Nothing has been more depressing than the persistent attacks which have been made by the party opposite—whether in Government or not—on the EEC proposals in connection with the formal establishment of industrial democracy in Britain.
We know perfectly well—and there are still many of us in your Lordships' House who remember this—how valuable it was during the war to have, for example, promotion in the Armed Forces taken well away from the previous old boy and social network within which it previously occurred. During the war we had War Office selection boards in order that there could be recruited from the ranks of the Armed Forces people who were fully capable of exercising leadership. Indeed, they proved a very considerable success. It was found that even though in civil life one did not have very much money or social connections—one might even have been a grocer or someone of that kind—nevertheless one could rise to the highest ranks in the Armed Forces. There was no question that the progressive breaking down of the social class barriers which had hitherto subsisted to a very large extent within the Armed Forces themselves contributed powerfully to the unity of the nation as a whole and to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces themselves.
Such, too, was it the case in industry itself during the war. Nor is this a matter for amusement. It is a matter of very great seriousness on which the future of this country may yet very well depend. During and immediately after the war it was found that the whole machinery of consultative committees, through which workers in factories contributed in an ever-increasing degree to the decision-making and to the creative suggestion-making of our wartime factories, proved to be a very decisive advantage in the logistical supply of the struggle itself. The idea that the ordinary worker at the bench should participate more and more in the decision-making process and in the planning process within the works in which he worked persisted for some time afterwards.
Up to now, at any rate, it has generally been accepted that progress in this direction—even though its final form still remains to be argued out and determined—is of enormous potential value to the country. The noble Lord may well say, as indeed he said on Second Reading, that his party still believes in worker participation. All I shall say is that his actions strongly belie it. In its public and political pronouncements over the past three years it has shown a progressive hostility to any kind of worker involvement in management. In fact, in any event it has shown increasing arrogance in its whole attitude towards the ordinary working person. I have no need to go further in this than to quote one of the party's own leading philosophers on the subject. There was a time when Sir Keith Joseph was the party's guru on matters of this kind, but it will readily be agreed that Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne is probably hot second on the list, being the deputy editor of the Conservative Party's house journal, The Sunday Telegraph. This is what he said in March:
"I am a Tory Marxist, in the sense of accepting the need to take sides in the class war, even if, so to speak, on the other side.
It is difficult to overestimate the extent to which the writings of Marx strengthen my conservatism, by making me aware of the nature of the proletarian danger and the need to combat the threat by all means fair and not so fair.
Tories like Sir Ian Gilmour"—
Lord Derwent: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord briefly. I am becoming rather fogged. Can the noble Lord explain to me what this has to do with the Bill
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, certainly. Even the noble Lord should understand that when one considers the application of a particular clause which has for its purpose the need for the abolition of any move to industrial democracy, it is quite proper—and the noble Lord would do it in his own place—to discuss the attitude of the party opposite towards exactly that.
Lord Derwent: I was not suggesting that it was improper; I just thought that it was rather boring.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I can understand that it will be boring to the noble Lord, but the noble Lord has to take his medicine as well as give it, and I propose to continue. The article in The Sunday Telegraph continues:
"Tories like Sir Ian Gilmour are naive, precisely because they knew nothing of Marx. Although Marx intended to teach the proletariat the fight, he also taught some of the owning class to be equally militant. The present Tory recrudescence owes more to Marx than it does to Adam Smith."
1470
I am suggesting that the attitude of the Conservative Party and the present Government—as exemplified very often not only in the words of the Prime Minister but also in those of Mr. Norman Tebbit—is completely hostile to any progress being made towards industrial democracy. Their inclusion of this particular clause in the Bill proves it, and I invite the Committee to support our amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Simon: I should like warmly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As he rightly said, in different parts of the Committee we take different views as to how best to promote employee involvement in decision-making. He used the phrase, which has now become popular, "industrial democracy", which, as I think I have said in your Lordships' House before, is a phrase which I do not like because I think it gives rise to a misunderstanding of what we are getting at.
However, on employee involvement in decision-making, we on these Benches and our allies are very keen to see this advanced. In the original Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act we had this clause which required the corporations—and now it is only the Shipbuilding Corporation—to promote industrial democracy in a strong and organic form in its undertaking. On Second Reading I think it was suggested that this was a fairly nebulous expression of opinion, and I rather agree; I do not like the way in which it was put. Nonetheless, it was put, and it is a spur to the corporation to use its best endeavours to advance employee involvement in decision-making.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, at Second Reading doubted whether it was very effective. It may not be very effective. I dare say that if it had never existed, there would be no great point at this stage in putting it in. But I maintain that, as this requirement does exist, a great deal of harm will be done by removing it, for it will give everybody the impression that this is something which the present Government do not want to see followed up. I very much look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has to say on this matter, and I hope he may be a little flexible.
I know that it may be suggested—and I was reminded of this in the discussion yesterday in the House on the Energy Bill—that to leave this duty with British Shipbuilders might be unfair because the proposed hived-off parts would not have this obligation upon them. That is an argument which should be met in this way. The Government and the national industry should lead the way on these things. British Shipbuilders should be prepared to encourage the development of employee involvement, and if other people do not follow that example I am sorry; but at least British Shipbuilders should set the example.
3.51 p.m.
Viscount Rochdale: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I feel I must say a word in regard to what the noble Lord opposite said on industrial democracy, and particularly in regard to its relationship with shipbuilding. I happen to have taken part in the debate on the Bullock Report in your

1471
Lordships' House. At that time I had only recently given up the chairmanship of what was then the largest company in Northern Ireland: the shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff.
The Government of the day—the noble Lord's Government—had expressed the view that they wanted industrial democracy to be introduced there. I expressed absolute co-operation with them and was willing to help as much as I could. But as things turned out, the way I hoped to do it—and I believe I could have made a success of it, and I say that in all humility—was a different way from the way that the Government wished to do it. Naturally the Government's view prevailed, a plan was drawn up, it had much discussion, but no employee member ever reached the board and, so far as I know, never has reached the board.
The point I particularly want to make is that the responsibility for that was not that of those on this side of the House, it was entirely the responsibility of the trade unions who did not wish to play. That is the situation as it has continued, so far as I know, up to today. I am in favour of a degree of industrial democracy, and I do not believe that my views are very different from those of a great many other of my noble friends on this side of the House, but not necessarily in the way that either is practised in the Community or as recommended by Bullock.
Lord Trefgarne: I am obliged to my noble friend for his intervention, speaking, as he does, with the great weight of experience in a major shipbuilding company. But as I said at Second Reading, industrial democracy goes hand in hand with good management. I reminded your Lordships that in our debate in 1977 the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who was then speaking for that Government, said:
"Industrial democracy must develop from the people involved".
It should not follow a rigid formulation laid down by Government. The very phrase "strong and organic", the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, admitted had no precise meaning. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that far at least then as I agree now. That is why we are removing this duty from British Shipbuilders.
In any event, the duty is somewhat inexactly expressed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, admitted. I do not know what "strong and organic" means. It was clear from the debates in 1977 that many of your Lordships did not know what it meant either. Indeed, the Government of that day were wise enough to include subsection (10) in Section 2, which said:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing upon either Corporation, directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court.".
I should think not. The courts would have had a field day with that particular subsection.
We are not saying to British Shipbuilders that they should now cease making any attempts to promote employee participation. British Shipbuilders have made considerable efforts in this direction and have established steering groups of employees and management at most yards. The pay agreement
1472
provides for joint monitoring of progress on productivity and other matters. We believe, however, that this should be a matter for British Shipbuilders' management as it is for management in the private sector.
British Shipbuilders' subsidiaries will report progress on industrial democracy following the amendment to the Companies Act 1967 introduced by the recent Employment Act, and I expect British Shipbuilders to do so as well. The directors of the operating subsidiaries also owe a duty to have regard to the interests of employees under Section 46 of the Companies Act 1980. The British Shipbuilders group should be subject to the normal commercial disciplines on this matter to be found in the Companies Act. That is consistent with the whole philosophy of this Bill—British Shipbuilders is to be opened up to ordinary commercial opportunities and the commercial disciplines which go with them.
I believe that it is wrong to impose upon British Shipbuilders and their subsidiaries, and upon them alone, the artificial and curious constraints which are imposed by subsection (8) of Section 2 of the 1977 Act. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to reject this amendment, which would leave those restraints imposed upon them.
Viscount Simon: The noble Lord suggests that this will in any case be done by British Shipbuilders by virtue of the provisions of the Companies Act. But British Shipbuilders is not a Companies Act company, is it?
Lord Trefgarne: British Shipbuilders, as we provide for in the later clauses of the Bill, is to be moved in due course and as opportunity provides back into the environment of the commercial sector. That is the environment that we want British Shipbuilders to operate under, and that indeed is quite different therefore from the proposals in this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord the Minister, if I may say so with the greatest respect—and I am not being cynical about this—has read his brief with the great charm that he always has in this House. But he did not deal with the point which my noble friend Lord Simon indicated earlier. The Minister said that certain groups had been established, that steering groups had been set up to study certain matters. What he did not deal with—and this is fundamental to this amendment—was what my noble friend Lord Simon said, that the Government and British Shipbuilders should, in the present circumstances, lead the way and set an example to encourage employee involvement. So far as I understood the speech of the noble Lord the Minister—and if I am wrong I will apologise—there was no indication in his reply that there was a definite attempt by the Government to encourage, by statutory form, what we think is so essential, and that is to encourage employee involvement.
Lord Trefgarne: What the noble Lord means by "show the way", as he puts it, is to impose upon British Shipbuilders constraints which are not imposed upon the competition within the private sector in this country, and indeed not imposed in

1473
general terms upon their competition in other countries of the world. The industrial democracy "strong and organic", as the old Act describes it—and that is a description, as I say, which I am not able to comprehend—is a constraint which we seek to have removed from British Shipbuilders because we should like to see them operating in due course as an ordinary company within the normal commercial trading environment of this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord has delivered himself of some most extraordinary observations concerning the removal of constraints. I know of no complaint by the chairman of British Shipbuilders that this particular section in the 1977 Act imposed any particular constraints or burdens upon them. Indeed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, has already said, in the capacity he then was, he actively encouraged participation by the sections of the work force in the running of the affairs of the company in which he was at that time. I am sorry if he experienced any obstruction or discouragement from the unions involved. He made an effort, however, and that is all this is about.
The Minister says he believes in participation. Participation is part of the promotion and process of industrial democracy. Had this part of the Bill laid down a form of industrial democracy which the corporation was bound to follow, that would, of course, have imposed some responsibility, and possibly even a burden on it, because there might have been disagreement as to the form of the industrial democracy. But this is a permissive clause in that it asks the company to promote something. It does not say "Do it", but implies that it should promote and actively encourage something, and worker participation is part of that process. Therefore I cannot see the Government's objection to this aspect of the 1977 Act—that is, unless they have an ideological objection to it, and unless the whole idea of workers in a concern ever participating in the running of their company is so repugnant to them that they cannot bear even its presence in the Bill.
More and more as this Government proceed in office they are pursuing a policy of increasing confrontation with the ordinary working people, and they are not even bothering to disguise it. This part of the Bill, in eliminating this part of the 1977 Act, is a further example of their determination to make their stamp on it; they and the interests they represent are the ones who will rule, and no nonsense about it. Again, they are making a great mistake. The future of our country will be seen as soon as the Thatcher episode—and a sordid episode it is—is over and done with (and that may not take very long either) and then the people will see that only by working co-operatively together for common purposes will the nation be successful and its people attain some degree of that personal serenity to which every individual is entitled. For that reason we say that this part of the Bill is regressive and seeks merely to stamp the whole nature of the Government's authoritarian rule on the country at large, and we invite noble Lords to support our amendment.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83: Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Amulree, L.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

McCluskey, L.

Banks, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Milford, L.

Bishopston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Blease, L.

Nicol, B.

Blyton, L.

Oram, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Peart, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Phillips, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Plant, L.

Byers, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Chitnis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Collison, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Rhodes, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Roberthall, L.

Denington, B.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Foot, L.

Shinwell, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Simon, V.

George-Brown, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hale, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Walston, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kagan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

De Freyne, L.

Aldenham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Derwent, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dulverton, L.

Beloff, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Belstead, L.

Elles, B.

Braye, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Falmouth, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ferrier, L.

Cathcart, E.

Fortescue, E.

Chelwood, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L,

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gainford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Glanusk, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Cox, B.

Gray, L.

Craigavon, V.

Greenway, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Daventry, V.

Hayter, L.

Davidson, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

1475

Kilmany, L.

Onslow, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Orkney, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Lawrence, L.

Porritt, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Long, V.

Rochdale, V.

Loudoun, C.

St. Davids, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mansfield, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Marley, L.

Terrington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mills, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Molson, L.

Trenchard, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mottistone, L.

Vaux of Harowden, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Westbury, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Organisation etc. of British Shipbuilders' activities]:
4.13 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 29 to 34.
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the deletion of virtually the whole of subsection (2) of the new Clause 4A referred to in Clause 2 of the Bill. There are two reasons. The first is that the new Clause 2 gives very considerable powers to the Secretary of State. These are by no means confined to his power to order the discontinuance of any of the board's activities nor are they confined even to the powers given here to sell off any or some of British Shipbuilders' assets. On this side of the Committee we do not think that these are powers that the Secretary of State should have, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State is a very important member of the present Government and the present Government have made quite clear their intentions towards British Shipbuilders in two fields: first of all, in their ordinary day-to-day attitude towards the activities of British Shipbuilders as it is now; and, secondly—and I will come to the point presently—as to their plans for disposal. It would be one thing to give the Secretary of State powers to help the activities of British Shipbuilders. That would be a very good thing to do, particularly if one was persuaded that one had a Secretary of State who was willing to do that.
I turn now to the field in which any Secretary of State can be of enormous help to any public corporation whether it be British Shipbuilders or British Steel or whoever it may be. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his Second Reading speech dealt with the question of competition. He said, in column 8, on 7th March:
1476
"The Government would be ready to use these powers if BS were to engage in unfair competition with established shipping interests".
That is a very definite statement. What is in doubt, however, is whether the Government are prepared to intervene where BS itself suffers from unfair competition. So far there has been no indication of that.
The signals ought to have been given to any Secretary of State who had the opportunity of reading the chairman's report published on 20th July 1982. I quote from page 13 of the report and accounts covering the year 1981–82 of British Shipbuilders. He said:
"The new excess capacity which has come into operation in South Korea at a time when other major shipbuilders have significantly reduced employment facilities and throughput must be considered irresponsible since it can only damage recovery prospects in the shipping and shipbuildings markets. The depressed price levels at which South Korea has in recent months been prepared to sell new ships to fill their expanded capacity is a matter of great concern for BS and other European shipyards. This competition coupled with the severe decline in the latter part of 1981 of the dry bulk shipping market means that the improvement in the order book will be hard to sustain".
Sir Ronald Atkinson could hardly have been more explicit than that.
What was the reaction by the present Government to that very strong point made about South Korea? Was there any response forthcoming at all? The noble Lord has said that the Government are very willing to intervene if BS competes unfairly with existing shipping interests. That is very nice of them. What are they prepared to do when British Shipbuilders complain of unfair competition from South Korea? Your Lordships will recall—and I hasten to assure the Committee that I will not go through the details again—that on Second Reading I gave the whole sordid, detailed story of the way in which an order for a cable ship was placed in South Korea in unfair competition with British Shipbuilders. Your Lordships will recall the whole series of rather extraordinary events involving a comparatively small and hitherto largely unknown company which successfully by-passed what one would normally have supposed to be the normal procedure on matters of this kind. Indeed, I hazarded the guess on Second Reading—and it certainly has not been denied—that the Department of Trade knew all about it and that, as a consequence. British Steel lost an order which amounted to some £3½ million. This is a not inconsiderable sum.
A whole number of other British firms lost likewise. What was the attitude of the Government towards this? We have only to go to the Select Comittee's report on this particular matter. The House of Commons Select Committee, when going into this question, had the opportunity of questioning the noble Lord's right honourable friend the right honourable Patrick Jenkin on this whole question of competition. This is what Mr. Patrick Jenkin replied on 27th October 1982, which is some time after the observations made by the chairman of British Steel in his report:
"It is certainly not in the interests of the steel-using industries in this country who, if they can get cheaper steel from Brazil, South Africa, Korea or whatever, are not going to go round telling the British Steel Corporation, the Government or anybody else that that is where they got it from, because they are in a very competitive market."

1477
That is a very surprising observation of detachment by a Minister who is supposed to be a help in safeguarding the interests over which he seeks to take powers of direction.
It would seem to me that the intervention of the Minister is all one way. If it is against British Steel they will support any move; if British Steel wants support they do not give a hang, and indeed they made no intervention whatsoever in this case of an order going to a country obviously guilty of dumping in that their wage levels are but a fraction of what they are in Britain and in Europe, who are under a semi-military dictatorship in any event and whose trade union rules, if they had been applied in Poland, would have aroused the noble Lord's ire in very much the same way that the ire is aroused because of the lack of freedom accorded to Mr. Lech Walesa. So does one trust the present Government to give directions that are in any way beneficial to British Shibuilders? I would submit the answer is, "No".
There can be no trust because the British Government are bent on exposing the whole of British industry, including British Shipbuilders and British Steel, to dumped competition from countries where wages levels are but a fraction of what they are in Europe as a whole; and despite their many protestations of support and robust statements about the necessity for action to prevent dumping, it is in fact contrary to their entire philosophy, and they would be quite happy if other sections of British industry, including British Shipbuilders and British Steel were in fact run into the ground.
The other provison of this Bill is to provide for disposals. It has already been hinted as to the kinds of disposals that are going to take place. Indeed if one moves to pages 26 and 27 of the annual report and accounts of British Steel one understands immediately why the noble Lord and the Government are bent on disposing of the warship section. It is very simple indeed because the warship section, apart from certain isolated parts to which I shall refer, is the only division making a profit. That therefore is ripe for disposal by the Government, however much it might mutilate the total structure of British shipbuilding. It is available for disposal to the various city interests and institutions which give more than formal support and, indeed, give financial support, to the party opposite.
But the important aspect to bear in mind about the disposal of the warship division is that it operates on a cost-plus basis. They cannot make a loss. The warship section gets its contracts from the Ministry of Defence. Its cost procedure is well known; it is ascertained; the actual cost of wages and materials, overheads, various fixed, variable and semi-variable expenditure is all taken into account together with the extra expenditure demanded by the Ministry of Defence for extra quality control. It is the total cost, including overtime and everything else: the procedures are well known.
On top of that the profit is added. There is no possibility of loss. That is the only section, for the moment at any rate, that the party opposite wants to sell off to the city interests who give them such profound support. They might wish, of course, to get rid of Hall Russell in the merchant shipbuilding division for they only made a profit of £63,000; or
1478
Swan Hunter, which made a profit of £83,000 last year. They might want to dispose of certain sections in the engineering division, but I doubt it because the profits made in the other sections—for reasons the noble Lord knows quite well, because he knows the state of the whole shipbuilding industry as and when British Shipbuilders originally took over—are in a very parlous state.
The noble Lord knows quite well that British Shipbuilders, with the Government subventions that have been made, is able to keep in operation precisely because it is able to apply the profits made by the warship building division against the losses that are incurred in the others. If the warship section were taken out it would completely alter the whole structure of British Shipbuilders and would make it more vulnerable to the forces within which it is at the moment compelled to operate.
Therefore we believe that the power to privatise various sections of British Shipbuilders should be taken out of the Bill. We believe that it is contrary to the national interest and that it serves no useful purpose whatsoever from the point of view of the country's economy, from the point of view of the employees or from the point of view of the managers or the executives. The only purpose that it serves—the one with which the noble Lord is well familiar—is to provide an extra bit of private pelf for those people who might be prepared to buy a cost-plus profit concern. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The proposed power of veto of changes in the organisation, contained in that part of the Bill which Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete, is a far more modest and less interventionist power than that created by the then Government in 1977. Section 5 of the 1977 Act gave that Government wide-ranging powers over the way in which the corporation was organised. Those have never been used—and quite right, too. The management of the corporation is best placed to propose how the activities it controls should be organised. It should not be subject to the incursive power of Section 5 of the Act, which is being repealed. However, the Government have a natural interest in the efficient organisation of a public sector industry and, if the amendment were accepted, they would have no power to prevent the corporation from making changes in the organisation which, in the Government's view, were likely to be detrimental to public policy.
The corporation and its subsidiaries are at present organised in a decentralised way, with activities contained in discrete and publicly accountable profit centres. This we believe to be right. It brings discipline and incentive if it is known that the results of a group's efforts will be available and open to public examination. We believe, therefore, that a power which can be used to preserve this type of organisation is necessary, but is also all that is necessary. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will reject Amendment No. 3.
May I speak at the same time, as the noble Lord did, to Amendment No. 4? That amendment is, I am afraid, quite unacceptable to the Government. It is, so far as we can ascertain, designed to wreck the Bill by

1479
removing from it those provisions which are to give the Government important reserve powers. In our view, it is essential, particularly where public and private sectors of an industry are in competition, that the Government should have powers to determine where the boundary line between the sectors should lie. It is well-known that there are fears of subsidised unfair competition from the public sector—fears which are inevitably stronger during a recession. When the Government are trying to ensure fair play, their position will be considerably strengthened by holding the reserve power to direct the public sector to withdraw from an activity. We hope that we shall not need to use these powers, but we shall be ready to do so if unfair competition persists.
The noble Lord asked me whether we would be willing to intervene to assist British Shipbuilders in the face of unfair competition, perhaps from the Far East. The United Kingdom's shipbuilding industry, in common with those of other European countries, receives assistance to help secure orders against Far East competition. We are continuing our efforts, along with our EEC partners, in the OECD working party on shipbuilding to bring about a concerted reduction in all aids to shipbuilding, both direct and indirect. Strong representations have been made through the OECD about the share of orders taken by Japan, for example, and the OECD have also taken a welcome initiative to open a dialogue with the Korean industry on world shipbuilding problems.
I said that we would hope not to have to use these powers. Similarly, we hope that we shall not need to fall back on the proposed powers to require British Shipbuilders to dispose of assets. We hope to act in agreement with the corporation. But we believe it necessary to have this power. There could be circumstances where the Government, taking a broader view of the public interest, differ from the corporation. That is understandable. The corporation will be bound to examine the question of disposals from the standpoint of the impact upon the corporation itself. The Government would look at the interests of the corporation, the interests of those parts being disposed of and the interests of the rest of the industry. Without these powers, the public sector of the industry would have unusual freedom. The equivalent of its shareholders would have little control over the extent of its activities, and I think it proper and desirable that the Government should have this control. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will reject Amendment No. 4 as well.
Lord Ezra: As someone who was concerned for some years with the management of a public corporation, I should like to express a degree of concern about the matters being dealt with under these two amendments. It seems to me that the Government are here proposing to take certain specific rights of intervention which are generally absent in the case of other corporations. Indeed, the directions which the Government usually give are of a general nature. I recall that there was a discussion in the early days of this Government in which there was some debate as to whether or not the Government should take on specific powers of direction, and the Government
1480
themselves decided not to do so. It seems to me that this is not the spirit in which these changes in the law are being proposed.
I must confess to feeling there is a degree of contradiction between the arguments used by the noble Lord the Minister in respect of Clause 1, which we debated a moment ago, when he argued strongly in favour of removing a restriction which applied specifically to British Shipbuilders, and this case, where it seems to me that there is an instance of imposing restrictions which would apply specifically to them. Trying to visualise this in the position which I previously occupied, I must say that I would find it very difficult to seek to conduct, in an effective and commercial manner, the affairs of the corporation for which I was then responsible if I felt that the Minister could intervene on any specific issue of a kind indicated in this clause. I believe that it requires a little more reflection before these changes are introduced into the law.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord, in his reply, made no further mention of his advertised plans to dispose of certain parts of the warship division, which were referred to by him on Second Reading. For the record, therefore, will he confirm or deny my statement that warship activities carried on by the warship division of British Shipbuilders are on a cost-plus basis to the Ministry of Defence or to various other ministries? Will he confirm that that is the case or, alternatively, deny it?
Lord Trefgarne: I am not in a position to give the noble Lord details of each and every contract existing between the various warship builders and the Ministry of Defence, or indeed the warship builders and any other customer that they may have. I understand that some of the contracts referred to are, indeed, on the basis that the noble Lord described, but other contracts are, of course, on a fixed price tender basis.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. My information is that the great bulk of the contracts of the warship division are, in fact, on a cost-plus basis. Therefore, the element of risk is very limited indeed, and the possibility of profit is rather more than a probability—amounting almost to a certainty. The noble Lord did not refer in any way to the point that I made to him about the Government's assistance to British Shipbuilders or, for that matter, to any other public corporation when faced with unfair competition, other than saying that they paid very diligent attention to it and would make the utmost representations that they could, in conjunction with either their colleagues in the GATT or their colleagues in the European Community.
Lord Trefgarne: That is not quite fair. I said also that we provide cash assistance to British Shipbuilders in respect of specific orders when they are faced with direct competition from the Far East or elsewhere.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord knows as well as anybody else that the intervention fund was established at a certain figure, which takes into account some, and only some, of the adverse circumstances

1481
experienced by British Shipbuilders. It is calculated to bring British Shipbuilders on to roughly the same basis as its Western European competitors, or its competitors from what I euphemistically term "the free West". No special help is given by the Government, through the intervention fund or otherwise, to enable British Shipbuilders to compete with dumped competition from Far Eastern states such as Korea. I am not referring to Japan. I am referring to countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil, whose wage rates are a mere fraction—under one-quarter—of those payable in Europe and who can therefore undercut the prices quoted by any of the other Western European states.
The noble Lord may have seen in the Financial Times of 25th March that British Shipbuilders won a £25 million order from Ethiopia for some ships. He will be interested to know that the basis of the quotation to Ethiopia was precisely the same as that upon which British Shipbuilders quoted for the Central Electricity Generating Board cable ship, the contract for which, under rather mysterious circumstances, went to South Korea.
What I and I am sure the Committee would like to know is how the Government propose to act in relation to British Shipbuilders in respect of competition on what I would call the dumped basis. The noble Lord's noble friend Lord Cockfield will be able to supply him with the full particulars because he went to the recent GATT negotiations and expressed some concern about the competitive challenge offered by what GATT term the newly industrialised states—not the developing countries, not the underdeveloped countries but the newly industrialised countries which operate under conditions of near dictatorship, such as South Korea, Taiwan and to a limited extent Brazil. I, and I am sure the Committee, would like to have more positive reassurance of action by the Secretary of State which would prevent such sordid cases as that of the cable ship ever occurring again.
Lord Trefgarne: I do not think that the Committee would wish me to be dragged into the details of a specific contract such as the one to which the noble Lord referred. In any event, I do not have in front of me the details of that contract. South Korea is not a member of OECD, but they do, I believe, although I stand open to correction, subscribe to GATT and there are regulations of widely different kinds under the GATT régime relating to dumping and assistance to shipbuilding. If the noble Lord has specific evidence of a specific case where regulations such as these to which South Korea subscribes have been breached, naturally I shall have the matter looked at.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Is the noble Lord informing the Committee that after giving detailed information concerning this cable ship to the House at Second Reading his department has not even bothered to investigate it?
Lord Trefgarne: I am not sure what allegations the noble Lord is trying to make. He did not say at Second Reading that in some way South Korea has broken the regulations to which both they and we subscribe. Is that what the noble Lord is saying now?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am saying that it is the business of Her Majesty's Government to protect British companies wherever it is proper for them to be protected. In other words, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give to public enterprises the same degree of protection as that which they are prepared to extend to private concerns. I am also saying that it is the official policy, so I am told, of the Central Electricity Generating Board to buy British.
Lord Trefgarne: What I want the noble Lord to do, if he is able to do so, is to tell me where South Korea broke the regulations. He is not able, I believe, to do that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am not alleging that South Korea broke any rules. I am suggesting that there has been gross negligence by Her Majesty's Government.
4.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 104.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Amulree, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

McCluskey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Birk, B.

Milford, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Blease, L.

Oram, L.

Blyton, L.

Peart, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Phillips, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Byers, L.

Rochester, L.

Chitnis, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Collison, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Simon, V.

David, B.

Stedman, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ezra, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Strabolgi, L.

George-Brown, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kennet, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Aldenham, L.

Cathcart, E.

Allerton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Avon, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cockfield, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Beloff, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Cox, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Cranbrook, E.

1483

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Daventry, V.

Marley, L.

Davidson, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

De La Warr, E.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Erroll, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ferrier, L.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gainford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Porritt, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gray, L.

St. Davids, V.

Greenway, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Stamp, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Killearn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kilmany, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lane-Fox, B.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Terrington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Teviot, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wise, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Mansfield, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall be agreed to?
4.54 p.m.
Viscount Simon: Before we agree Clause 2, I have two questions I wanted to ask the noble Lord the Minister. As this is a rather long clause, perhaps it would be convenient if I mentioned the page and line references. The first question relates to page 2, lines 31–32. Your Lordships will see a reference to "activities that have fallen to be carried on" under the ultimate control of the corporation. I was wondering whether before the next stage of the Bill the Minister would care to consult with the draftsman because it seems to me that the words "fallen to be carried on" are not very apposite. Since under the Bill British Shipbuilders will have no duties to perform, because those are all being eliminated, it seems to me that the activities they carry on must be the result of positive decisions by the board acting within their powers. Can these really be said to, "fall to be undertaken"? The word "fall" suggests to me an inevitability that is not there. I suggest that there must be another word which would be more appropriate.
1484
My second point is, I am afraid, a little more important. It arises at page 3, line 7. Subsection (2) reads:
"The Secretary of State shall not give any direction under subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that the giving of it will further the national interest".
I believe that similar words have appeared in other legislation. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell the Committee whether there has ever been any judicial decision as to what these words mean—"will further the national interest". I would suggest that any Secretary of State, whether he supports the party opposite or the Labour Party or the Liberal Party, will believe that the policies of his party are in the national interest. He will believe it genuinely; that is why he belongs to that party.
This leaves me with this difficult question. Supposing a decision is challenged as to whether a policy is in the national interest. We do not—do we?—want it referred to the courts to decide whether the policy of the Government is in the national interest. That would be a disaster in the case of any Government. That would bring the courts solidly into politics. I am wondering whether there is any ruling as to what this phrase means, because an honest Secretary of State—and we believe that all Secretaries of State will be honest—will, of course, believe that what he does is in the national interest; otherwise he would not do it. It seems to me that this clause might lead to some very uncomfortable discussions, and eventually, as I have said, references to the courts, which I would regard as most undesirable.
Lord Trefgarne: If I may deal with the noble Viscount's second point first, these, as he says, are hallowed words; they have appeared in at least one other piece of legislation, and I am certain that if I looked I would find more. The one that immediately comes to mind is the Iron and Steel Act 1981, and subsequently I think they appeared in the 1982 consolidation of that Act and some others. Whether those particular words have ever been tested in a court I rather doubt, but perhaps I can inquire into that, too, and write to the noble Viscount on that particular point.
The noble Viscount also asked about the words "fallen to be carried on" as they appear in subsection (2) of Section 4A of the original Act as amended by this Bill. The answer to that is that they seem to me to be entirely appropriate words. I will nonetheless take those words away and consult with the draftsman to make sure there is no inadvertent slip-up, and again write to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Simon: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1983
5 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and with your Lordships' permission I will speak at the same time to the second Motion in my name and then move it formally when we reach it. Since the amendment to the resources regulations is straightforward, I think it would be helpful to your Lordships if I spent more time on the housing benefit consequential amendments to the supplementary benefit regulations.
Your Lordships will recall that housing benefit brings together two current schemes of help with housing costs—local authority rent and rate rebate and rent allowance schemes and supplementary benefit. The removal of housing requirements from the various sets of supplementary benefit regulations and the necessary adjustments due to housing benefit changes have proved to be a complicated task. However, I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the end is in sight. I propose to describe only the more significant provisions in the final set of regulations now before the House. There are some technical adjustments which I shall naturally be willing to resolve if any noble Lord so wishes.
The first amendment of significance occurs at Regulation 2(5)(b), which provides for an addition to housing benefit supplement. This arises out of a point which I believe was first picked up by the Disability Alliance. As your Lordships know, the supplement protects those who would otherwise be brought below supplementary benefit level after paying that part of their rent and rates not rebated by the local authority. Supplementary benefit recipients who must pay an inescapable charge for amenities—for example, heating—are protected if their charge is high by having the amount of their charge above a standard amount included in their rebate. This means that no supplementary benefit claimant in this position is obliged to find any more than, for example, £5.60 a week for heating from his income. This amendment puts the housing benefit supplement recipient in exactly the same position. We do not think that there are many people who could be adversely affected in this way, but there may be some 5,000 of them and they could lose quite considerable sums—up to £5 or more a week. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we should put this right by making this regulation.
If a householder has non-dependent adults in his household, a deduction is made from his supplementary benefit. We have made a number of changes to the provisions for these non-dependant deductions. In Regulation 2(6)(b) we have provided for no non-dependant deduction to be made from supplementary benefit housing requirements where the claimant is already having a deduction made in the calculation of his housing benefit. This applies particularly to those who are buying a share in the equity of their home and paying rent on the balance. It would
1486
clearly be wrong to make two non-dependant deductions merely because their housing costs can be met only by combining housing benefit and supplementary benefit.
It is at Regulation 2(6)(c) that perhaps the most important change is made. The regulations currently provide that a full deduction shall be made—£4·70 per week—unless the non-dependant is in receipt of supplementary benefit, of pensionable age, or aged under 21. This meant that some unemployed or sick people, whose incomes were only a little above supplementary benefit levels, could have difficulty in paying the full contribution to housing costs. We have therefore provided that the deduction in such cases should be reduced to £2·20 a week providing the non-dependant has been in receipt of certain benefits related to sickness or unemployment for at least 13 weeks and has income comprising only one or more of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity allowance, injury benefit or child benefit.
The regulations also provide transitional protection for those few claimants whose benefit would otherwise be reduced by the provisions of these and the earlier sets of amendment regulations. I shall mention one in particular. Your Lordships will recall that from 4th April 16 and 17 year-olds will not be eligible for the non-householder housing contribution. My honourable friend the Minister for Social Security undertook to protect young persons under age 18 who are receiving supplementary benefit when the change comes into effect. This has been done at Regulation 2(7)(b). Young persons age 16 or 17, providing they are receiving benefit in the week commencing 28th March, will continue to receive the non-householder contribution for as long as they remain in receipt of supplementary benefit as non-householders.
I shall now turn to the short set of regulations which introduce a new partial disregard of adoption allowances to the supplementary benefits scheme. Adoption agencies are now able to introduce schemes for the payment of adoption allowances in cases where without such help a suitable adoption would not be possible. We anticipate that this new development will be of particular help to long-term foster families and for children whose special needs make them difficult to place. When the adoption agencies began to draw up their schemes, they expressed strong concern about the effect of the existing supplementary benefit regulations. These would require the whole allowance to be taken into account in the family's benefit assessment, subject only to the normal £4 disregard. An adoption allowance would thus be of substantially less value to a family on supplementary benefit than to other adoptive families.
We recognise, as do the Social Security Advisory Committee in its helpful and very thorough report on the draft regulations, that this problem raises difficult issues of principle for the supplementary benefits scheme. We concluded, however, that it was important to allow the adoption allowance initiative a fair trial for all families, including those on supplementary benefit. The draft amending regulations therefore introduce a disregard of that part of an allowance in excess of the adopted child's supplementary benefit requirements. This will ensure that the full allowance is available to put towards the

1487
child's welfare. We are bringing forward this regulation on the same experimental footing as the adoption allowance initiative itself. The time for long-term decisions will be when the future of adoption allowances themselves comes to be reviewed in the light of experience gained during the present experimental period.
I commend both sets of regulations to your Lordships, and I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th March be appproved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the Minister for the clear way in which he has tried to lead us through all these complications. Successive Governments have found that it is very difficult to express regulations referring to social security matters in clear and understandable terms for the people most concerned; that is, the beneficiaries. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say that the department will be publishing translations in leaflet form which are intelligible to those most affected, who are often those least able to follow the regulations, with their frequent cross-references, which are put before Parliament.
I know that in Command Paper 8788 in respect of amendments to the directors' earnings-related contributions it is said that the Government will be sending out leaflets; but in the other orders relating to people who may be equally concerned there is no specific reference to the intention to send out leaflets or to take any action to make these regulations understandable to those most concerned with them.
I want to refer first to the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1983. Of course we all welcome the more generous ideas about children who are adopted. I understand that this matter has not been through the House of Commons yet but that is no reason why we should not discuss it tonight.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness very rudely, but I understand that they are being taken, I think, today or tomorrow in the other place.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the noble Lord is not being rude; he never is. I was not sure about the clock, as to whether the regulations had actually gone through the House of Commons yet.
One aspect that worries me somewhat is that we are cross-referenced to the 1983 Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee in this connection; but when I tried to get hold of a copy of that report I was advised by our excellent Library (in whom I have total faith) that this is not available. I could not read the 1983 account. If this is available to some Members, and if there is a mistake in the Library, I am sorry about that; but I was informed very firmly that the 1983 Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee is not yet available. I hope that I am wrong, but I felt that I must mention this. I had honestly tried to do
1488
my homework on this and I was unable to make out the cross-references. I have of course Command Paper 8824, but there did seem to me to be some diversion between the adoption allowances payable and the contents of the unseen committee report. It may be that when the noble Lord the Minister replies he can help me to work this out somewhat.
On the second matter to which the noble Lord the Minister referred, I understand this went through the Commons on the nod. As the noble Lord the Minister says, this is the most complicated and difficult problem. I am finding that many people who are entitled to these benefits are totally confused about them. I want to ask just one or two questions. On page 4 of the draft statutory instrument there is a reference to:
"a non-dependant who is receiving full-time education at an educational establishment and whose needs are provided for, in whole or in part, by the claimant or his partner".
What does "in part" mean? Does it mean 5, 10 or 20 per cent.? If I go on, I find that in paragraph (d) on page 10 of the Explanatory Note there is the statement:
"it is provided that no deduction at all shall be made in respect of certain students and boarders".
How certain is certain? Who are these "certain students" for whom no deduction is to be made? This must be very unclear to a couple who have a son or a daughter studying at a polytechnic or who is working as an apprentice or an articled clerk. What is the connection between paragraph (d) on page 10 and paragraph (e) on page 4? I apologise if your Lordships think that this is nit-picking; but I assure your Lordships that for the families concerned these points are of vital importance.
On page 10 at paragraph (a), there is a reference to heating:
"A restriction on the applicability of certain amounts for heating is limited to householders but extended to include those that are co-owners".
This is a very puzzling statement to ordinary people. Is the householder a tenant; is he an owner? What is a co-owner? Who is excluded under this statement from applying for a heating allowance? In fact I must say to your Lordships that the regulations about heating are very confused and are causing a great deal of discussion and puzzlement.
I refer your Lordships back to page 4, paragraph (c), which mentions subsection (6)(a)(ii), which refers to non-dependants who are getting
"sickness benefit under section 14"
of the Act. I must ask the Minister whether that would include people who are getting the new statutory sickness benefit from their employers. That is very unclear to some of the people most concerned.
Those are the main points which I wish to raise on these first two orders before your Lordships and I do so with all understanding of the difficulties and the complications of this situation. But I am sure that it would be very helpful if some of these points could be met, and in any case I hope that the Minister will take up my point about the necessity of getting plain leaflets out to the people concerned. I do not understand why one of the documents before us tonight says that directors are to have a leaflet telling them about their

1489
earnings-related contributions but there is no reference in any of the other papers to proposals for publication. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he has very much in mind the need to make these complications clear to the people most concerned.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Baroness in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his explanation of these orders. I think perhaps the most important one—although, as the noble Lord said, it is the more straightforward—is the order which deals with the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1983. As the noble Lord said, it raises a matter of principle which created a minor crisis of conscience for the Social Security Advisory Committee.
As the noble Lord explained, local authorities and other adoption agencies are now able to submit schemes for the payment of allowances to people who adopt children in circumstances where adoption would not otherwise be financially possible. This, as the noble Lord said, is to be for an experimental period of seven years. But, where parents are on supplementary benefit, the allowance is counted as income and therefore it is deducted from supplementary benefit and they lose the benefit. Foster parents, on the other hand, do not lose in these circumstances. They do not lose since the child is not regarded as being legally part of the family unit.
The Government have decided to put the adopting parents who are receiving supplementary benefit in the same position as foster parents in similar circumstances. This created this dilemma for the Social Security Advisory Committee: Should they opt for justice as between foster parents and adopting parents or should they opt for justice as between different recipients of supplementary benefit? It is of course a breach of the normal rules and procedure to exempt the income from the computation for supplementary benefit, although of course this is only for a trial period of seven years.
I am glad that both the Government and the Social Security Advisory Committee have decided—although in the latter case with some misgiving—for justice as between foster parents and adoptive parents. I believe that that is right. Certainly if those on low incomes but not on supplementary benefit or family income supplement are to be helped by adoption allowances over and above their normal income, then so should those on supplementary benefit be assisted. I should like to ask the Minister whether I am right in suggesting that those who are not on supplementary benefit, nor on family income supplement, but who are on low incomes and so without the allowance would find it difficult to adopt, are entitled to the allowance. Am I right in saying that they would be eligible for an adoption allowance?
Whether or not they are, the present position would be a financial disincentive to foster parents to adopt. The problem that is raised by this conflict (if that is the right word to use) between the adoption allowance and supplementary benefit is the kind of problem which always arises with means-tested benefits. It will be very important to monitor the comparative position of
1490
those on family income supplement, who will have no disregard, though we are assured that, while losing, they will not lose so greatly as will those on supplementary benefit. As I say, it will be very important to monitor the situation to see whether it works out in that way. I think it worth mentioning that the Social Security Advisory Committee once again states that in its view today's supplementary benefit rates are inadequate.
If we turn to the other regulations, which are consequential upon the coming into operation of the Housing Benefits Regulations 1982, I think that we see that they ease the position created by the change to housing benefit, and in so far as they are designed to achieve that, we welcome them. As the noble Baroness said, this is a very complicated field. I have no specific question to ask the Minister with regard to the regulations, but I should like to know when we may expect consolidation, since it is extremely difficult to operate from different sets of regulations and to relate one regulation to another before one can know where one is. We on these Benches are content that the regulations should be approved.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on this Bench also wish, briefly, to thank the noble Lord for his lucid introduction of the regulations. From the moment of the passing of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 it was clear that there would have to be substantial amendments to the supplementary benefit regulations, and now we have them. I rather sympathise with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. One of the original purposes of the 1982 Act was to remove the confusion resulting from two types of rent and rates entitlement, and it would be a pity if we ended up with confusion worse confounded. Therefore, I, too, should like to ask the noble Lord what plans his department has for issuing guidance in simpler terms—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred to a translation—not so much perhaps to claimants themselves as to those bodies which are called upon to advise beneficiaries and claimants. Certainly consolidation is desirable for parliamentary purposes, but it will not be of much assistance to the ordinary beneficiary. I hope that we can hear something from the noble Lord about his department's plans in this respect. Otherwise, I think that we can say that, along with our Liberal friends, we welcome the general burden of the regulations.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I had to agree with all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who spoke when they said that these matters really are extraordinarily complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me when we could expect a consolidation measure to bring all the regulations under one heading. I agree with the noble Lord that that would be highly desirable. Without taking advice I am not certain quite what timescale is envisaged, or indeed whether we propose to take such action, though I feel sure that it is somewhere in the pipeline. Perhaps I may make some inquiries and write to the noble Lord about it.
I was especialy asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about what measures had been taken to bring these matters to the public notice, and in particular to those people who might be affected by them. We are running a

1491
national press advertising campaign to tell claimants in simple terms about the administrative changes. The campaign started in January, and will continue until the end of March. In addition, local authorities and local offices will be letting individual claimants know how the new schemes will affect them. For social workers and others who advise claimants we have produced a special edition of Social Security Notes, which explains how the new scheme will work. A supplement to the Supplementary Benefit Handbook, giving details of the supplementary benefit changes, is also available. Our regional information officers will also be giving publicity to the scheme at local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also asked whether we would keep under review the question of people with family income supplement particularly with regard to the adoption allowance arrangements. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall be doing that. As I said in my opening remarks, the scheme with regard to the adoption allowance is an experimental one, and all these points will need to be taken into account when in due course we review the scheme as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, quite properly also raised a number of detailed points about the regulations. I wonder whether she will allow me to write to her with answers to all those points. I do not wish to duck anything that noble Lords put to me across the Floor of the House, but perhaps the noble Baroness would prefer a considered, reflective reply, rather than something off the top of my head. I hope that your Lordships will agree to the first Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit (Housing Benefits) (Requirements and Resources) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1983
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th March be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1983
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 18th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft scheme. The purpose of the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1983 is to make changes to the principal scheme—that is, the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme 1983—as a consequence of the abolition of injury benefit from 6th April 1983. The amendment scheme also makes provisions similar to those in the industrial injuries scheme for Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme beneficiaries who go abroad.
The principal scheme provides for benefit to be paid out of the National Insurance Fund for disablement, or death, caused by certain diseases if they result from employment before 5th July 1948, and neither workmen's compensation nor benefit under the industrial injuries scheme is payable. Under the principal scheme, increases may be paid for dependent wives and children. These increases are related to what would be payable under the industrial injuries scheme to someone receiving injury benefit. But injury benefit is abolished from 6th April 1983, by the provisions of Section 39 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982. Therefore the principal scheme must be amended to change references to injury benefit to references to sickness benefit.
Your Lordships may care to note that Articles 3 and 4 of the amendment scheme which we have before us this evening amend Articles 5 and 6 respectively of the principal scheme by removing references to injury benefit and replacing them with references to sickness benefit. The changes are purely technical and do not affect—I stress this—the amount of benefit payable. Dependency benefits for wives and children will continue to be payable at the lower rates off £15.45 and 30p respectively. If the beneficiary is receiving unemployment supplement, he will still get the higher rates of £18.85 and £7.95 respectively.
We are also taking the opportunity in Article 2 to make good a deficiency in the scheme for beneficiaries who take the chance to leave the United Kingdom temporarily. Until 1975 there was provision for beneficiaries to continue receiving unemployment supplement, together with any increases for dependants, while they were abroad if they met certain conditions. These conditions were contained in industrial injuries regulations which were amended in 1975 with the result that provision for beneficiaries under the scheme in these circumstances was lost. In fact, no cases of beneficiaries receiving unemployability supplement who have gone abroad have arisen since then. With only 11 unemployability supplement cases under the scheme and an average age of 75, it is unlikely there will be cases involving absence abroad in the future. However, to cover the possibility, Article 2 in effect restores the position to that before 1975 for beneficiaries who leave the United Kingdom while receiving unemployability supplement whether or not they have dependants.
Article 2 also tidies up the provisions for beneficiaries receiving constant attendance allowance or exceptionally severe disablement allowance who go abroad. The article sets out the circumstances in which these two allowances will continue to be payable to beneficiaries outside the United Kingdom. Previously, the scheme cross-referred to the corresponding regulations governing industrial injuries claims. Again, there have been no cases affected by these provisions in recent memory and none is expected.
With that, I hope, brief explanation of this rather technical scheme, I beg to commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 18th February be approved.— (Lord Lyell.)
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for setting out so clearly what is before us. I wish only to clarify one or two points. It is a question of making clear to those concerned what the Government have in mind. The draft scheme is an expensive piece of paper costing 75p. That is extraordinarily inflationary. Article 2 amending Article 4(4) of the principal scheme states in paragraph (b):
"a person shall not be disqualified from receiving an increase of allowance under article 8 by reason of being temporarily absent from the United Kingdom during the period of 6 months from the date on which such absence commences".
I should like to ask the Minister this. If a man is going off to see his daughter who has been so unwise as to emigrate with an Australian and set up on the other side of the world—he perhaps wants to visit her and the grand-children—how does he know before he starts that he will be there for six months? Maybe his son-in-law cannot stand the sight of him. He may not like the weather. On the other hand, he may like it so much that he wants to stay. Is it the intention firmly to hold to the six months? I ask that question because the sentence goes on to say:
"or during such longer period as the Secretary of State may, having regard to the purposes of the absence and any other factors which appear to him to be relevant, allow".
Does this mean that a person going abroad has to ask the Secretary of State? Does he ask the Secretary of State halfway through his stay? Or is he expected to ask the Secretary of State when he is on the way home? It is important that this matter should be made clear. Under paragraph (c) it is stated that
"a person shall not be disqualified from receiving an increase of allowance under Article 7"—
without giving any duration. I assure the Minister that I am trying to be helpful. I am endeavouring to state what I would feel if I was a person in this position trying to read the draft statutory instrument. The explanatory note on page 3 states that the person concerned,
"is not disqualified from receipt of benefit during a temporary absence from the United Kingdom".
There is no reference to the actual duration of "temporary". This must be confusing for people who do not know whether six months is temporary and how temporary is temporary. I am not raising these points from any adversarial position. I am merely trying to find out for those who may be concerned what they can expect. It is a serious matter for the individuals concerned. I hope the Minister will be able to make clear whether the explanatory note on page 3 has any connection with paragraphs (b) and (c) on page 2 and, if so, which takes priority.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords would wish to thank the noble Baroness for her close scrutiny of this extremely complicated scheme. I am sure that the Official Report of your Lordships' House will wing its way, certainly to the Australian High Commission and I suspect eastwards. I am sure that the noble Baroness is doing great things for her own chances of acceptance in that happy land by her comments about the wisdom or otherwise of daughters of beneficiaries of these schemes heading for
1494
Australia. I hope that the airliners will not be decanting the noble Baroness or other persons over the Tasman Sea. The noble Baroness also gave major plugs for Australia, although I do not know the reasons, and for the telecommunications industry, when she mentioned how beneficiaries would be communicating with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and others. The noble Baroness was kind enough to give me preliminary warning. I shall try to assist as she has a point in asking for some definition of the words "temporarily absent" in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Article 2, which amends Article 4 of the principal scheme.
I understand that the reason for the provision of six months in paragraph (b) at the top of page 2 is largely historical. Until 1975, the increases in unemployability benefit, constant attendance allowance and the exceptionally severe disablement allowance all involved absence from the United Kingdom not exceeding six months. If it was any longer, it was at the discretion of the Secretary of State. In 1975 the specific term of six months was taken out of the provision for unemployability supplement which excepted temporary absence and included some other conditions that have not been adopted for this scheme now before us because of the age of the beneficiary and the fact that we understand that none of the 11 is likely to go abroad.
The definition of the word "temporarily" that appears in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is, I am afraid, not contained in the scheme. I understand that it is for the independent adjudicators to decide each individual case. There are only 11. If the noble Baroness is suggesting that all 11 beneficiaries should report tonight at various airports in the United Kingdom, that would indeed be a great tribute to her persistence and the news travelling from your Lordships' House.
I would stress to the noble Baroness that it is up to the two independent adjudicators to decide on what is "temporary" absence from the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness raised the point about when the beneficiary might change his or her mind when abroad. We do not necessarily take the extreme example of Australia. While the absence abroad of the beneficiary is expected to be temporary, the adjudicators may well decide that the conditions for benefit remain satisfied upon the claimant's statement before he—I am not too sure whether any of these 11 are ladies, but let us assume that they are all gentlemen—leaves the United Kingdom.
I hope that I have gone some way, if not all the way, in attempting to answer the question of the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, I would thank the noble Baroness and, indeed, all of your Lordships for listening with such care while I have attempted to deal with this extremely difficult order this evening. I believe that your Lordships will agree that we have said enough and for that reason I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1983
5.41 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment

1495
(No. 3) Regulations 1983, which were laid before your Lordships on 25th February, be approved. These regulations will remove the greater part of an unnecessary irritation which present provisions cause the so-called "opted out" women—those married women and widows who retain the right to pay national insurance contributions at the reduced rate.
At present, if an employer wrongly deducts full-rate contributions for them, these women are not able to say that they would like to give up their right to pay the lower rate and let these contributions stand, so counting towards their contributory benefit rights. Payment of the lower rate contribution gives no benefit rights, apart from industrial injuries cover and, from April this year, inclusion in the statutory sick pay scheme. So a woman who has wrongly paid at the full rate can only be offered her money back by my department and, if she wants, give up her right to pay the lower rate only from the start of the next tax year.
It will be apparent that this is something of a nonsense of a provision. In essence, we have to force money back on women who actively wanted it to remain in the National Insurance Fund and begin to build up benefit rights for them. Nor, under existing provisions, are we able to allow these women to give up their right to pay the lower rate—revoking their election, as it is called—in the middle of a tax year. They have to wait till the start of the next one.
What these regulations aim to do is to put the situation right. Any woman who has wrongly paid full-rate contributions at the not-contracted-out rate will be able to let them stand, so revoking her election retrospectively and enabling the contributions to count towards her benefit. And because it is only fair to let these women make their decision in the light of a reasoned calculation about their benefit expectations, we shall give them until the end of December in the year following the end of the tax year in which the contributions were paid to make their decision.
Your Lordships will see that there are certain exceptions in the new regulations. Most of these are to stop administrative complications. For example, if a woman has already obtained a refund of contributions or has subsequently paid a contribution at the reduced rate, it would obviously not be right to let her full-rate contributions stand. But the most important exception, to which I would draw your Lordships' attention, concerns women who have a period in contracted-out employment. They will be excluded from the retrospective provisions, and for a very good reason. If they were allowed to revoke their election retrospectively, their doing so would impose a liability, however small, on their employers in respect of the guaranteed minimum pension that is the counterpart for people who are contracted-out of the additional component in the state scheme. Even if the employer accepted this obligation willingly, there is no way that it would be imposed within subordinate legislation. The simple fact is that no subordinate legislation of this kind can create a retrospective liability.
The remaining major provision of these new regulations is to enable women with the right to pay reduced rate contributions to give up that right during a tax year and start to pay at the full rate from the date
1496
of their choice. Again, this is a sensible concession which will enable us to meet the wishes of the women concerned, instead of insisting that any change of status must be made from the start of a new tax year.
As I said at the beginning, these changes are wholly beneficial. They go as far as they can in helping opted out women to choose what contributions they want to pay and when, and mark a real step forward in our efforts to meet contributors' wishes. They will also, incidentally, enable a modest staff saving to be made in my department. I cannot believe, therefore, that these changes will be other than welcome, and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations 1983 laid before the House on 28th February be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I welcome, as I am sure we all do, what the noble Lord the Minister has said. I am sure the Minister will be glad to hear that I do not propose to go into any of the details. The whole question of the insurance situation of married women and widows is a very large problem and it is not to be dealt with in regulations which are coming before us tonight. I know that many women's organisations and I hope many members of Her Majesty's Government are giving great thought to the fundamental problems involved in the insurance position of married women and widows. We welcome these small improvements tonight and hope that your Lordships will agree to them.
Lord Banks: My Lords, all that I want to do is to thank the noble Lord for his very clear explanation of the contents of this order and to welcome the removal of "an irritation", as he said, which has been caused to married women and widows.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on this Bench would also like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation. I would also like to pay him a compliment. I found his explanation a great deal clearer and easier to understand than the Explanatory Note which accompanies the draft order. I hope that he will perhaps make his communication skills available to his department in their communication with the general public at large. He mentioned a staff saving in his department. I hope he will be able to give me an undertaking that the staff saving will not be made in that section of the department which is concerned with producing readable leaflets for the department's clients.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful—indeed, flattered—by the reception of the order that I have moved tonight. I will certainly see whether I can give the assurance for which the noble Lord has asked. I am not quite certain of our plans with regard to that particular department and, therefore, for me to give a categoric assurance now might be unwise. However, I shall with pleasure look into the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Greater London Council and Southwark London Borough Council) Order 1982
5.48 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 17th January 1982 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the complication of the title of this draft order, I hope that I may be allowed to move the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper. This order is made under Section 141 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and effects the transfer of approximately 132 acres of land, known as the Southwark Site, from its present owners—the Greater london Council and Southwark London Borough Council—to the London Docklands Development Corporation.
The Southwark Site was to have been released by the authorities for a major development proposal by Lysander Estates Ltd. Because the local authorities have withdrawn from negotiations with Lysander, that scheme cannot now proceed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the environment therefore, on 23rd December last, made this order vesting ownership of the site in the London Docklands Development Corporation.
The order was laid before the House on 17th January and it was declared hybrid and was open to be petitioned against for a period of 14 days. Four petitions were received against the order: one from each of the joint owners; one from the Southwark Trades Council; one from the Southwark Docklands Campaign and a number of local tenants associations.
The Greater London Council opposed the order arguing that the site had been the subject of a major private sector development proposal, the details of which had been negotiated between Lysander and the owners. The owners had now withdrawn from those negotiations, and wished to pursue the contingency plan which had been prepared against this eventuality by the borough council. The GLC argued that they were accordingly better placed to secure early development of the site than were the LDDC.
In their petition the GLC also argued that if the order were approved, it would leave in the council's ownership small areas of land which would be severed from the Southwark Site, and that the order incorporated other areas of land which the council required for the construction of the A200 Lower Road improvement scheme. The borough council in their petition similarly argued that, following the withdrawal from negotiations with Lysander, they were best placed to secure early development by implementing their contingency plan which provided for public housing, open space and industrial development.
The Southwark Trades Council argued that the Lysander scheme had always been unsuitable for this site, and that what was needed was industry and public housing related to local needs, which the trades council believed could be provided by the local authorities. The trades council supported the contingency plan prepared by the borough council and
1498
further argued that to vest the site in the LDDC would pre-empt the borough's local plan for the North Southwark area. The council also contended that the corporation's performance in the Southwark area could not justify the Secretary of State's belief that the LDDC would secure early development of the site.
The collective petition of the Southwark Docklands Campaign and local tenants associations argued that the Southwark Site should be developed for the benefit of local people and not on the lines of the Lysander proposal. Concern was also expressed that, if vested, the opportunity would be lost for the provision of further public housing, community facilities and industrial development which was related to the needs of people in the borough.
The order and petitions were referred to the Hybrid Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House. They considered whether any substantial ground of complaint was made which merited an inquiry by Select Committee. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in his representations to the Hybrid Instruments Committee, pointed out that the development of this site had been one of the matters aired before the previous Select Committee which had considered the designation and constitution order establishing the corporation in the first place and defining the Urban Development Area.
He explained that at the time of those proceedings there was no proposal to vest the site as negotiations were continuing between the local authorities and Lysander, and it appeared that a satisfactory scheme would be agreed and would proceed without delay. However, counsel for the Secretary of State in summing up the Government's case stressed that if this development did not proceed, Southwark's chances of finding another developer must be doubtful. In that case the LDDC would be better placed to secure an alternative development for the site.
In their report the Select Committee agreed that that view was the right one. They also stressed that a change of approach was required in the docklands area, and that the need was to attract private investment. They concluded that the LDDC was more likely to attract that investment than were the local authorities. My right honourable friend explained to the Hybrid Instruments Committee that since the petitions were deposited, assurances had been given to the GLC that in those cases where severance of land may be caused by the vesting order, then the LDDC would purchase that land. The GLC have also been assured that land required for the construction of the A200 Lower Road improvement scheme will be dedicated for highway purposes.
He also explained to the committee that the contingency plan prepared by the local authorities would rely heavily on direct public investment in the provision of services and public housing. The authorities recognised this. My right honourable friend explained that there could be no reasonable expectation that such resources would be available, and in those circumstances it must be doubted that the plan could be implemented. He also referred to the concerns expressed by several of the petitioners regarding the provision of public sector housing in the North Southwark area. He told the committee about the

1499
agreement which the corporation had made with Southwark for the provision of improved accommodation, including 550 new dwellings, for many of the borough's tenants in the North Southwark area.
My right honourable friend concluded that the matters referred to in the petitions had been so fully canvassed in the proceedings on the designation order that, having regard to the circumstances in which vesting was now proposed, the petitions disclosed no substantial ground of complaint on any new matter.
As I have said, the petitions, together with my right honourable friend's representations, were considered by the Hybrid Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House. I am sure the House would wish to agree with me in recording our gratitude to those noble Lords who sat on that committee for the careful consideration that they gave to the many points raised by petitioners. In that consideration the committee took the view that none of the points raised was of such substance as to require investigation by a Select Committee. Therefore, I beg to move.
Moved, That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Greater London Council and Southwark London Borough Council) Order 1982, laid before the House on 17th January 1982 be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
5.55 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having outlined the matter before the House. He may recall that on previous occasions when I have spoken to these orders of the London Docklands Development Corporation and, indeed, to the Merseyside orders, I have expressed some concern that the methods of ensuring progress should be such as to get the full support of the local community as well as adequate resources to carry out the job. This debate is really about the needs of the people of this area of dockland and how they can best be accommodated. Of course, their needs are a rejuvenated area, brought to life with essential amenities, and they include the development of industrial sites in order to bring work and jobs. The needs include housing development by the public authority for those in the greatest need, taken as a social service and not merely as a profitable venture. Of course, there is the need to develop leisure and other amenities.
On the question of how that task can best be carried out, I think that we should bear in mind the need for local people to feel that they have a part to play in order that the experience and the unique interests and skills of local people can be matched to the task. To get local involvement from the start is the best way to get people working together for the common good. We believe that the task cannot and ought not to be attempted by imposing a régime from the top. We know that in some parts of the country development corporations have been set up which, of course, include the LDDC and, as I said earlier, the Merseyside Corporation, and so on. They have a special task to perform and have needed the powers and sometimes the resources which the Government have given them. However, unlike local authorities, they are not run by elected people answerable to the community which they seek to serve. They cannot be
1500
as responsive; they cannot have the unique experience of locally-elected representatives who have to meet, to listen to and, indeed, to react to local opinion. They are answerable to no one except the Secretary of State, who of course has many other things to do, and who is remote from the situation.
The land in question is valuable, especially for developers. Of course, private developers are not only concerned about the purpose of development; they are concerned even more about making profits. One does not criticise that, but it is not the main point. They look for a good financial return on their investment. In some situations that is commendable, but in this case it is not a matter of having to accept such a proposition in order to get development going and the needs of the people met. There is another alternative, a better one, which has not had a full hearing in the debate taking place.
The development of an area is not only a matter of providing development in the sense of building industrial buildings and factories or of building houses. There is the need for utilities, roads, public services and amenity services as well, aspects which are not always profitable in the financial sense. In this area we are concerned with providing a social service for the people who live there and, indeed, for those who might be invited to come in and rejuvenate the run-down area.
On the matter of the resources being available, to which the noble Lord referred, the infrastructure is already in the state of provision. I understand that, contrary to the view that has been expressed to justify the development role of the LDDC, as a quicker way of getting things moving the London Borough of Southwark has moved with quite remarkable speed substantially to develop the infrastructure for the Southwark Site and for the surrounding area of the Surrey Docks. Further work is due to start this month on the final clearance of the site and the demolition of warehouses, and so there has been a considerable amount of work undertaken already.
The present owners of the 130-acre site, to which the noble Lord made reference, are the Southwark Borough Council and, of course, the Greater London Council. This land was acquired after the closing of the Surrey Docks in 1969 from the Port of London Authority, and is therefore already in public ownership. There have been several attempts at development, and Lysander Estates Limited, to which the noble Lord made reference, agreed in April 1981 to build major shopping, industrial and office development, but this has not been proceeded with after even protracted negotiations, so that really is not an alternative.
Failing progress for private development the two local authorities, Southwark and the GLC, have been going ahead with an alternative plan. Those authorities and others have petitioned against the vesting order, and the matter has been looked at by the Hybrid Instruments Select Committee, who say that the petitions do not warrant further investigation by a Select Committee. Therefore, the debates in the other place and in this House are the only means by which the two authorities, and indeed other petitioners, can have their views aired, and they are very concerned

1501
that they will not get a chance of putting their point of view as people concerned with that immediate area.
Trammell Crow, the original potential developers, dropped out in 1976 for financial reasons. As Lysander have not proceeded as private developers in view of the problems likely to be faced by any private developers, what makes the Government think that trying private development through the LDDC will be a better, more desirable alternative, and will make greater progress? The noble Lord should say how they anticipate getting public support for their plans through the LDDC, and how they will consult those in the area who they exist to serve.
There has been no immediate rush for alternative private development. The potential negotiations to which I have made reference have fallen down. The LDDC and, indeed, the Government should learn a lesson from local authority experience with Lysander, for Lysander wanted quite drastic changes in several important aspects, including a reduction in the premium and licence fee they should pay the councils for development, changes in rent reviews, changes in leases, changes in plans and changes in arbitration and other procedures and powers, which would not have been in the best interests of the local area. It was reasonable that in the circumstances the local councils should want to get ahead with the development themselves, and of course they already have the powers to do so. Why not allow them to get on with the job? They have the powers; they have the resources; and, most importantly, they have local authority representation and accountability to the public, which of course the LDDC does not have.
They do not want a repeat of the Lysander experience, where, after protracted negotiations, the potential developer wanted a review of the proposals which would have meant a much poorer financial settlement for the authorities as well as loss of control over development of the land and resources. If one looks at the list of complaints of the local authorities in relation to the Lysander situation, one can understand their concern. It is not a case that Lysander wanted revisions because of delays in the road programme for the adjoining area. The point I want to make there is that there has already been a fair amount of work by the Southwark Council in the area of the Surrey Docks. There have been site preparation works, new sewers, gas services, the removal of silt and dock repairs. Then there are the community facilities: landscaping, grants for local community organisations, improvements and so forth; housing, 281 new family homes with gardens; industry, 10 new factory units and the reconstruction of approach roads to the area, the construction of a new distributor road, the Salter Road; and, finally, open space and environmental improvements. Altogether the amount expended runs into about £34 million. This represents a realistic and viable plan, and the implementation has already begun with the considerable investment to which I have made reference.
There is the councils' plan, agreed in consultation with the local people through locally elected representatives, and plans for the creation of 2,000 jobs by industrial development, with the GLC Enterprise Board contributing to the major investment; and housing, with over 700 dwellings with local authority
1502
houses, gardens and amenities at rents people can afford. We shall be told that there are already many such houses publicly owned in the area. Surely what matters is not who owns the houses but whether those most in need of them in the area can afford to have them, or whether some will be able to jump the queue with money.
If the Government say that they are proud of the fact that they are giving local authorities with housing the chance to sell their houses, then surely the best way here is to have rented accommodation. If it is true, of course, that those who want to buy can purchase, then the Government have already provided the means for them to do so. If the houses built are only to be sold, then this means that local people who have not the means to buy a house but who would like to live and to work in the area are deprived of that essential right.
The council has made considerable progress with dock filling and with the consolidation of the dock basins, running to over £3½ million in the Surrey Docks site. A lot of work has been done by the local authority. The local authority is only asking to have the opportunity to carry that development on instead of having it taken away by the LDDC and developed with different prospectives in mind.
Finally, I want to put a few questions to the Minister. Will he accept that the main reasons for creating the LDDC is to enable it to use powers and resources not available to other authorities? Will he accept that where other authorities have such powers, and have such resources, it is much more preferable for them to use them because they have the major advantage which the development corporations do not have, and that is that they have local people to whom they are responsible working with them?
Would the noble Lord accept the view I have expressed on previous orders that it is far better to have local authorities running these projects when they have the power to do so, because they can consult with local people? They have not only the members but also the officers in their local departments who have experience of the local situation, and this is a great advantage. I wonder why, in this particular order, the matter was not pursued by a Select Committee hearing evidence from the local authorities and from the many other organisations who were concerned?
Will the Minister come back to Parliament, as being the only forum that the Government have used for this order, to report on the proposals which the LDDC may consider necessary later? Because if there are no other means of consulting local opinion via the locally elected representatives, the councillors, then the only way is to get the views of the elected Members of Parliament. Having been elected to power, as the Government have, with the slogan that the Government of the day do not always know best and that there should be decentralisation of power from Whitehall to local authorities, will the Government stop taking power to themselves continually and stop appointing people through the Secretary of State instead of using locally elected representatives?
The House has a right to know the answers to some of these questions. The Government must be brought to realise that power should be used as a means to an end and not as an end in itself; and it is best used when

1503
exercised by people for people. Surely that is the best way to progress with harmony, which is necessary for future progress. I believe that the Southwark Borough Council and the GLC plan is the best for progress in the situation we are discussing, and that there really is no case for this order to be pursued. I hope that the Minister will recognise the genuine concern of so many people of all sorts, and will provide some of the assurances we seek.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, spent almost the whole of his speech on the subject of the LDDC, whereas what the order is about—and what I understood the debate would be about—it is whether the LDDC is an appropriate organisation to develop this site.
Lord Bishopston: That is what I am asking, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall come to that shortly, my Lords. To be fair, I should add that later in his speech the noble Lord made that point.
The docklands corporation was established under the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and was charged with the task of the regeneration of its area. That was two and a half years ago, and up to that time I remember well going to docklands and seeing the absolute devastation that had been built up over the years since the war. The corporation's task was to be achieved particularly by bringing land and buildings into use and by encouraging the development of existing and new industry and commerce, so creating an attractive environment and ensuring that housing and social facilities would be available to encourage people to live and work in the area.
Southwark is the local council, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, but what I cannot see when I look at the District Auditor's report is why he should say that the council is willing and able to develop the site. The District Auditor recently reported that Southwark has about 120 acres of vacant land, excluding this site. Moreover, Southwark is top of the league of London boroughs for empty properties, having 4,500 in its area. It is also top of the league with hard to let properties, with about 14,000 of them. It is a long-standing concern of the Government, as the House knows, that housing authorities should concentrate on improving their present housing stock before increasing it.
The corporation is firmly committed to the regeneration of this part of docklands. For this to take place, the site must first be cleared of contaminated silt, levelled, consolidated and generally prepared for development. The LDDC is already funding the completion of a distributor road in the Surrey Docks area at a cost of approximately £1 ½ million, and these works will cost a further £1 million. The corporation would have commenced a full survey of the site to identify the extent of the site clearance necessary, but an application to the local authorities for permission to enter the site was refused.
The LDDC has commissioned two leading firms of planning consultants and chartered surveyors who are
1504
advising on development options for the site. This will ensure that the site's development potential is realised as quickly as possible, utilising the private investment which was clearly identified by the Select Committee as being necessary for the regeneration of the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, almost went so far as to charge the Government with a little impropriety over seeking to make this vesting order. It is true that the Government are opposed to the contingency plan about which we have been talking; the plan relies heavily on public resources which simply are not available. There is a great shortage of private sector housing in docklands generally. In this immediate area, only 2 per cent. is owner-occupied. There was no derelict land grant which could be given to Southwark Council for this site because to qualify for the supplementary programme for 1982–83, schemes must have been completed or substantially completed by 1st March 1983. It was obvious from Southwark's application that only a small proportion of the expenditure would have been incurred in this financial year, so my department was unable to approve the grant. There is also very little prospect that sums of this magnitude will be available in 1983–84 for schemes of this type.
The noble Lord then said—I think I heard him correctly—that it was better for local authorities to run projects of this sort. I hope I have shown the House that that is not so, and that is exactly why the LDDC was set up two and a half years ago—because that simply did not happen. He then spoke about the need for local involvement. The LDDC consults widely on development proposals. Borough officers are seconded to the LDDC for their local knowledge. The 1980 Act requires members of the board to be appointed who have local knowledge. Therefore I most certainly rebut the charge that the development corporation is lacking in local knowledge and does not do its job of finding out what the local people really want.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister accept that having local knowledge is not good enough? After all, what we are talking about is accountability. If there are locally elected representatives who are in touch with and answerable to the people, that is more democratic than appointing members to the LDDC and trying to get them to work in an environment which is not always harmonious. Regarding the vacant properties of which the noble Lord spoke, it obviously follows that while local authorities are going ahead with improvements to houses and other buildings in their areas, those properties will be vacant. It is authorities which do not do much which can boast that they have few vacant properties, although they have people living in substandard conditions.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall obviously have to go to docklands—
Lord Bishopston: The Minister certainly shall.
Lord Skelmersdale:—and take the noble Lord with me.
Lord Bishopston: I have been there.
Lord George-Brown: May I come too?
Lord Skelmersdale: Of the housing to which I was referring, my Lords, I should be very surprised indeed to find that the reason why most were empty was that they were being redeveloped, improved or whatever; rather, I think we should find they were empty because people were not prepared to live in them, or they were unsafe to live in, and they were not being improved. However, as I said, I shall take the point the noble Lord made firmly on board and go and look for myself.
As for accountability, my feeling is that it cannot always be measured in terms of direct application to people. That may sound a rather strange thing to say; I am really saying that what should happen is what is best for the site, for the local population and for those people who are not yet in the local population but who will, we hope—and the LDDC is determined it should happen—go into the area to live. It is also important that there should be a mix of housing and industrial and commercial property, on both the public and private sides; and that is what the LDDC intends to develop in the areas vested in it.
As for resources, the powers and resources are provided by Parliament. The Select Committee considered this point and agreed that the docklands corporation should be set up. That committee recognised that these powers were necessary. I should add, on the subject of housing, that the development corporation is emphatically not a housing authority.
6.20 p.m.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, may I throw myself on the mercy of the House. Other business—committee business—in the House kept me from coming into this debate as early as I should have liked. Perhaps the House will be courteous enough to listen to me for a minute or two. It just happens that I am a Southwark boy; it just happens that Bob Mellish, who is the deputy chairman of the LDDC, is a Surrey Docks, Bermondsey, boy. Between us we have knowledge of what has happened, of what is needed, which (with the greatest respect to the noble Lords, Lord Bishopston and Lord Skelmersdale) is not naturally available to them; although, obviously, it can be acquired.
There are two points that I want to make very briefly, since I do not want to trespass on the courtesy of the House. The Southwark Council has not shown any very great interest in the regeneration of the area and neither have the other local authorities in the area covered by the docklands corporation, an area which, of course, is wider than just the Surrey Docks and Southwark Council. There is, and has been for ages, tremendous conflict between Tower Hamlets, Southwark and the other local authorities who have got in each other's way; and, as the Minister has said, there has been for a very long time a total run down of our area which has much distressed us.
May I say to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that it is not necessarily true that by giving the authority to a local authority—and they are interested in many other things; there are many political ideologies opeating within that authority; and
1506
I can tell him that there have been many political conflicts in that area—because they are a democratically "elected" authority; that you therefore get more dynamism or more action. In fact you get, and we have got, less.
Had I still been a Labour Minister, and especially had I still been the Minister for Economic Affairs, I think that I would have taken this as one of the classic cases for appointing an authority which includes local representatives, local people, but also with people with business and other experience to do a job which local bureaucracy simply cannot do. Whether houses are publicly-owned, privately-owned, rented or self-owned is, in a way, interesting; but it is also, in a way, incidental.
What is necessary in the Surrey Docks area, and necessary in the whole river basin area right down to Limehouse Reach, is some concentration on introducing industry and commerce so that people have a reason for going there. All that has happened up till now has been (to use a horrid word) the "gentrification" of certain parts of it where people—let us face it! Socialists as well as others—have bought houses in those limited gentrified areas. But the place has gone on decaying as an industrial and commercial area.
The docklands corporation is in consonance with Labour Party views. When I was in the party, we had invisaged such authorities. The chairman of this one is (if you like) a capitalist. I do not know whether or not he is a Tory. I have not asked him. I know him. But he is a dynamic personality who gets things done; and he has a social conscience. The deputy chairman is one of us, one who knows the area inside out and cares deeply for it. There are members on it who know the authority. They are getting on with the job. They are more likely to attract commerce and industry to it than are the Southwark Council or any other councils in the area. I think that it is an exciting idea. I think that it is much more likely to work if we encourage it to work and give it resources and backing. Knowing the area so well—I do not live there any more but a large part of my family does so—I have to tell the House that something is happening; something is stirring in dockland. And that has not happened under the Southwark Council, the Tower Hamlets Council or under any of the local authorities, for quite a long time.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has a very well prepared brief from the Southwark Council; but I must tell him that the officers of the local authorities are delighted, quite thrilled, by the fact that somebody is getting on with the job. I do not want to put anybody's job at risk; the Southwark Council is a pretty vicious authority; the public members do not hesitate very much about disciplining people with whom they do not agree; but I can assure him from personal knowledge that the officers are thrilled that somebody is getting on with the job, is consulting them, listening to them and putting their ideas into practice. There is really no party point in this.
I simply suggest to my colleagues—at any rate, to those who were once my colleagues; and some of them still are—do not get in the way! This is a public corporation; it is a publicly responsible corporation.

1507
That was never out of favour with us. At the end it is accountable. It is more accountable than either the Southwark Council or the GLC in point of fact. I should like to suggest to my colleagues in my ex-party: do not get in the way here. Something is happening, something is moving, in a deprived area, a deprived area to which I belong, in which I was born; to which Bob Mellish belongs and in which he was born. Something is moving; let us help it move.
The fact that the councillors of Southwark feel slightly put out—or, to be more exact one or two rather (if I may say so) odd leaders of Southwark Council are put out—is neither here nor there. Let the work of regeneration go on. Let us get commercial interests into the area. Then people will want to live there, then the local authorities, if they want to do their housing job, can do their housing job. As the Minister has said, the docklands corporation is not a housing authority. The housing authorities can do their job. The important thing is to regenerate the area and I believe that the docklands corporation will do it. I know that none of the local authorities has done it. I thank the House for its courtesy.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sound Broadcasting: First Report from the Select Committee, "Yesterday in Parliament"
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ferrier Lord Ferrier rose to move, That this House takes note of the First Report from the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, Yesterday in Parliament.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House takes note of the First Report of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting. I feel that as I must be critical of certain aspects of the operation of the BBC, I ought to declare that I have a profound respect for the way the corporation addresses itself to most of its manifold tasks and I especially single out the overseas services. There are exceptions, of course, but my respect is indeed the very reason for my criticism as to the manner in which the Corporation sometimes fails.
The Select Committee were instructed by the House to consider whether or not the recent change in the format of the programme Yesterday in Parliament and its inclusion as an item in the Today programme is in conformity with Clause 13(2) of the current licensing agreement. Having taken counsel's opinion (which is set out in the report as your Lordships will have seen) the committee concluded that the BBC are not in breach of the obligations under the clause by virtue of the fact that they produce a programme each evening entitled Today in Parliament, which is broadcast at 11.30 p.m.
Many of the details are set out in the report but I would quote from paragraph 5, which states:
"Nevertheless, the Committee were aware of the strong feelings expressed by Members of the House that the new presentation of Yesterday in Parliament, particularly its considerably shortened length,"—
(14½ minutes instead of 29 minutes)—
"has meant that the House of Lords has received much less coverage in that programme than it used to have in the past."
1508
My own view is that, as in the present case of Today in Parliament, our proceedings in the House have generally received a very fair crack of the whip. The committee, as your Lordships will have seen from the report, had a meeting with officials of the BBC, a report of which is set out in paragraph 2. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was kind enough to encourage me to attend as a spectator, which I did.
I have followed for years, off and on, the BBC's reporting under Clause 13(2) and have always held that same view as counsel and the committee hold; namely, that the BBC's treatment satisfies the obligation under the clause. However, I have held this view reluctantly, feeling that though the corporation has indubitably complied with the letter of the clause, they have always failed to comply with the spirit of it. Why, my Lords? Because 11.30 p.m. and 8.30 a.m. are unsuitable times for the bulk of potential listeners. There are of course complications, as was brought out in the record of the meeting, but these do not alter the fact that most people are abed by 11.30 p.m. or at work by 8.30 a.m.
In July 1946, the White Paper on Broadcasting Policy contained the following words:
"Daily reports are already being given in the Corporation's programme, in addition to weekly talks by Members [of Parliament] and the Government have now laid upon the Corporation an obligation to broadcast an adequate and impartial daily account by professional reporters of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament."
I emphasise the word "adequate" because it did not appear in the Licence Agreement dated November 1946. The clause in that licence, which was then Clause 4(2), is identical with the present Clause 13(2) of the current licence and is the one to which I have referred.
Perhaps some of your Lordships may recall what happened before the war. I do not myself, because I was working overseas between the wars. However, I recall a long meeting that I had with the late Lord Reith in 1966 and I remember him saying that he had instituted some such link with Parliament from the earliest days of radio. I would link that with what I have quoted from the White Paper, namely, that daily reports were already being given. That was in 1946, and Lord Reith said that it was one of his principles when he first established the BBC.
The system which had been established after the war, in 1946, continued for many years. There have, of course, been minor changes linked with technical advances such as the recording of speeches, which are set out in the report. But the change in the format of the morning programme last autumn was an important departure and has given rise to this debate. The reduction of some 14 minutes in the programme introduces a new problem. If what took 30 minutes on the previous night is reduced to 14½, what is being cut out and why? Is there any trace of censorship? I do not think there is, but nevertheless something has got to be cut out. What generally happens is that a whole item which was covered overnight may not appear again, and no amount of predigestion by "political correspondents"—and I put the words in inverted commas because that is the phrase used in the current Today programme as the creators of this predigested matter which is given in Today at about 8.35 a.m.

1509
—can make up for that. I should like to quote the 21st and 22nd March as forming a typical example. Adequate overnight coverage of the Transport Bill was followed in the morning by no mention of the fact that the House of Lords had sat at all.
And what about the other word which is still in the clause; the word "impartial"? Was it impartial, again for "a political correspondent", to say on the 17th March, regarding the previous day's trade union debate which had been well reported overnight:
"Actually whatever the ostensible reasons for this reform, the real political nub is that the Government want to loosen the connections between the unions and the Labour Party by, for example, instituting new procedures by which union members have to contract into, that is agree to, paying the political levy, rather than as now having to make a positive political decision to contract out"?
That is part of the predigested version made by "a political correspondent".
My Lords, what about this morning when, in reporting the debate in another place about Mr. MacGregor, came the words "Then came the tricky bit"? That was the £1½, million. But it was not what was said in the other place. However, I had better say nothing about the other place, although I welcomed—as I think other noble Lords have done—the letters from my right honourable friend the Member for Chelmsford, which have been published in The Times. Indeed, it remains to be seen how the other place addresses itself to this problem for their reaction is of paramount importance.
I may say that my heart goes out to the skilled team who prepare the excellent programme, Today in Parliament, which used to be the basis for Yesterday in Parliament the next morning, and was, therefore, in those days, heard by some 3 million or more listeners, instead of by only 100,000 to 150,000, as is the case today. That team are the true "professional reporters" who are referred to in the clause.
I confess that I am taking more of your Lordships' time than I had intended, because the corporation indicated, in paragraph 29 on pages 14 and 15 of the report, that they await "the response of Members of both Houses", and the pages of Hansard seem to me the best place to record our feelings. I therefore welcome the forthcoming debate and the speeches of noble Lords who have been kind enough to put down their names.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the corporation really take the trouble necessary to analyse the situation properly, not merely "counting the heads" but thinking of the serious listeners who want to know what is going on in Parliament, untrammelled by saxophonic fanfares and the other horrible noise which the programme makes—is it a xylophone?—in the morning. I sometimes think—but I shall not develop the subject—that, in respect of this programme, the BBC are engrossed or obsessed by the demand for ratings. Surely, ratings do not apply in a matter like this when competition does not exist, or should not do so.
I could go on, but I will not. For instance, I could remind the corporation that they might try to do some more about informing Scotland and the jungle north of Watford. Also, titles, such as The Week in Westminster and Inside Parliament, are sometimes
1510
downright misleading. Finally, may I repeat what the 1946 White Paper said:
"The Government attach great importance to the part which broadcasting can play in keeping the public informed of parliamentary proceedings".
That goes for me, also. Our thanks go to the Select Committee and I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to the debate which will, I assume, follow the new format which will emerge from this unfortunate experiment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the First Report from the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, Yesterday in Parliament—(Lord Ferrier.)
6.43 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having put down this Motion this evening, drawing attention to the First Report by the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting. I am quite sure, too, that my fellow members of my committee will be delighted to have this opportunity of putting the views of the committee to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has for many years been a most active watchdog on the broadcasting of the affairs of this House, and we are all greatly in his debt for what he has done. He modestly said that he was a spectator at our committee meeting. He certainly took a much more active part than that and he, in fact, gave evidence to the committee. As your Lordships will see in the report of the committee, we say that we
"share Lord Ferrier's view that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is vital to the health of parliamentary democracy",
As the noble Lord has said, the committee were instructed by the House to consider whether or not the recent changes in the format of Yesterday in Parliament, and its inclusion as an item in the Today programme, is in conformity with Clause 13(2) of the Licence and Agreement of the BBC. We had a very clear and concise opinion from my counsel, Mr. Derek Rippengal—we have come to expect this sort of admirable report from him—and he came to a very definite conclusion with which the committee concurred. He said, if I may quote from the report,
"I conclude that the 'Today in Parliament' programme"—
that is, the programme that goes out at 11.30 in the evening—
"satisfies the obligation to broadcast a day by day account of proceedings in Parliament contained in Clause 13(2). It follows that there is, in my view, no obligation to broadcast a 'Yesterday in Parliament' programme at all. That does not dispose of the question whether if such a programme is broadcast it must comply with the requirements of Clause 13(2). In my opinion, however, there is no obligation for it to do so".
That opinion was accepted by the committee and is now reported to the House.
But we certainly did not leave the matter there. We went on to discuss with the representatives of the BBC the various complaints that had reached our ears about the new format of Yesterday in Parliament. We explained to them that we had no general complaints about the Today in Parliament programme. In fact, if anything, we were very much in favour of it; we welcomed it. We certainly get a great deal more coverage from that programme than we get in the

1511
press, and we left them in no doubt on that fact. It followed from that that we had very little general criticism of Yesterday in Parliament in its previous form, because, in fact, it was a repeat of the Today in Parliament programme, except that five minutes were lopped off the end. If we had any complaint, it was that those five minutes usually came from the report on your Lordships' proceedings. But, in general, we welcomed that programme, too.
What has caused so much criticism is the fact that, since this new experiment was started, a much reduced programme in length—only some 14½ minutes—has been broadcast, that it has appeared as part of the Today programme and that political commentators have been substituted for reporters. This point was made very forcefully by the committee to the members of the BBC who came to see us. I believe that they were a very distinguished number of people, very high up in the BBC, and we should have regard to the reasons that they gave for this new format.
I know that there are those—I am sure not here tonight—who see a sinister motive behind every action of the BBC. I am not one of those. I spent several years happily working as an employee of the corporation. But recently, also, I have come into contact with them, both over the Nationwide programme and, more recently, over the projected series on Parliament and the Palace of Westminster, and I found all the officials that I have dealt with most co-operative and most responsible.
What did they say about the reasons for the new format? I would quote Mr. Francis, who is the managing director of BBC Radio. He said:
"it is not simply a question of putting things on the air, it is a question of attracting listeners".
He went on to explain that in the previous form, when Yesterday in Parliament was broadcast, there would be a considerable drop in audience figures. The Today programme, which used to precede it, was listened to by something like one in seven of all those people who were listening to radio at that time. As soon as Yesterday in Parliament came on the air, that figure dropped to one in eleven. This problem, they pointed out, would have been accentuated at the present moment by the competition that would have come from breakfast television.
If I may again quote Mr. Francis:
"If we put the matter of Parliament before a diminishing audience and one which is switching off, we may not be fulfilling the other element of our responsibility, which is to entertain the public and interest the public and illuminate the public's understanding of Parliament. That is the dilemma we face".
It was to counteract this fall in audience numbers that the BBC decided to try out this new format. To that extent—audience numbers—it has been successful because the Yesterday in Parliament programme now enjoys the one-in-seven audience of the Today programme.
But we left the members of the BBC in no doubt at all that this had been at the expense of coverage of the proceedings in this House. We had quite an array of facts and figures, which we put before them. It was quite clear, as my noble friend Lord Ferrier said, that on several occasions there was no mention of this House at all; on several others, it was less than one
1512
minute in the 14½-minute programme; in general we received less than 10 per cent. of the programme; and even important debates were ignored. To give them their due, the BBC representatives were sympathetic to our point of view and promised to consider it. Your Lordships will see that in the minutes. In my opinion, since we met them there has been an improvement so far as coverage of the affairs of this House are concerned.
The position is that this experiment, which was for a period of six months, will end at Easter. During the Easter Recess the BBC will be evaluating its success, or lack of success, and they wish to take fully into account the views of Members of both Houses of Parliament. I feel sure that this debate will be most valuable in making known the views of the Members of this House for that review by the BBC.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for giving us an opportunity to debate this subject, but I do not go along with him entirely. I do not believe that we should cavil too much about Yesterday in Parliament. The BBC, as we have discovered, is under no obligation to give this second report of our proceedings. They do so because they think it will interest a sufficient number of listeners. We who believe it is important for the nation to know what is going on in Parliament should regard this as a bonus—all the more so because the BBC is not merely performing a pious democratic exercise but is trying to make Parliament of interest to a wider audience of listeners.
The programme Today in Parliament has a small audience, not only because it goes out very late at night but also because, for most people, a straight record of proceedings, even when enlivened by live quotes, is a dead bore. It is enjoyed by those of us who are serious students of politics. It is also enjoyed, of course, by my fellow insomniacs. But it is because Parliament is extremely difficult to report in a way that interests a considerable number of people that the popular newspapers have ceased to report it as a whole. Indeed, they give it hardly any attention at all. The serious newspapers, except for The Times, have cut down their reports. Indeed, all the serious newspapers have developed a facetious parliamentary sketch that may make fools of us all—and not always when we are making fools of ourselves.
In order to attract a wider audience, the BBC are now attempting what I know, as an old hand at the written form of this game, is a very difficult technical feat. Instead of a straight report, a microscopic Hansard, instead of a serious summary, they are attempting a sketch report—at once an explanation and a description of what has gone on, enlivened by the living voice. Moreover, it enables them to put subjects in context. I do not believe we should be afraid of the voice of the political correspondent who explains something to us in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has described. We should not be too "touchy" about these matters. I do not believe that there is anybody, outside the ranks of the parties, who would think that either of the remarks which were quoted was anything but objective reality. The new programme is holding a larger number of people

1513
whose hand would once fly to the "Off" switch the moment they heard the word "Parliament".
A much more difficult problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has suggested, is the balance of the report between the two Houses. Of course the elected House must get the lion's share of the time, but the other place has sometimes got the lot. Some of our important debates, or our brilliant phrases, or our unique perceptions, have been ignored. In moments of blackest despair I sometimes feel that nobody takes this House seriously except we ourselves and those who would abolish this House. But this House, which performs an important legislative function, surely must have a modicum of time devoted to it in anything which purports to be an account of Yesterday in Parliament. Sometimes, as has been pointed out, we have not even had a mention, although never a day passes on which something important is not said and done in this House which may never be available to the mass of people unless it goes out on the BBC.
In their reconsideration of this programme over the Easter Recess I believe that the BBC should beware of another temptation: to give some lively, amusing but trivial passages simply to get away from what had been given the previous night. Ideally, Yesterday in Parliament should surely make the main events of the previous day available in a more widely acceptable form, skating with professional skill around the problem of repetition. That being said, I thought that this morning's effort was wholly admirable and perhaps might be regarded as a model for the way the job should be done.
6.58 p.m.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for giving us the opportunity today to debate the First Report from the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, of which committee I have the privilege to be a member. The six-month experimental period for the new format of Yesterday in Parliament ends on Wednesday. After the Easter Recess, as noble Lords have heard from the Lord Chairman of Committees, it will be reviewed by the BBC to see what changes must be made for the future. Indeed, as a result of a most interesting meeting of the Select Committee with senior members of the BBC's sound broadcasting staff, which has also been referred to by the Lord Chairman of Committees, they have undertaken not only to review the experiment as a whole but to look at the allocation of broadcasting time between the two Houses. Therefore, the point I am making is that your Lordships' debate today is not only important but extremely timely.
In response to a suggestion that the experiment might represent a radical and deliberate change of policy, the managing director of the BBC agreed that he would prefer to describe it as an adjustment; but I have to say that it is a pretty radical adjustment. The reduction in overall time allotted now to Yesterday in Parliament and the feeling that the BBC's contractual obligations under Clause 13(2) have been totally satisfied by their programme Today in Parliament has led not only to much reduced coverage of the proceedings in your Lordships' House in Yesterday in Parliament, but often that coverage is confined to
1514
small snippets of newsworthy items rather than the important work which very often goes on.
As an example of what I mean, on 19th January there was an important debate on education, proposed from the Opposition Front Bench, in which 20 speakers took part, and due to other important business that day the House did not rise that evening until a quarter to eleven. Yet the only reference next day in Yesterday in Parliament to your Lordships' proceedings for the 19th January was to a Starred Question which only lasted five minutes.
One must admit that much of our business in Committee stages is unlikely to inflame public interest or to catch the eye of the BBC's radio editor. Nevertheless, it is important work, and if the BBC's account is to be professional and impartial, it deserves a mention to indicate the wide range of work carried out in great detail in your Lordships' House on many Bills. And in particular they should point out—and to my mind it cannot be repeated too often—that since we have no guillotine procedure in this House we need to go through every Bill very thoroughly and in detail.
As the Lord Chairman of Committees said in his opening remarks at the Select Committee, many, if not most, of your Lordships feel that the experimental period represents for this House the worst option. I believe your Lordships will agree that we have no complaint with our representation in Today in Parliament broadcast at 11.30 p.m. in the evening to an audience of about 150,000, whereas we have done much less well in the new experimental Yesterday in Parliament broadcast at about 8.45 a.m. to perhaps very nearly 1 million listeners. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrier that we need to be criticial of the actual times chosen by the BBC for the broadcasting of these two programmes. Whatever time they were to choose it would be inconvenient to somebody, and in this respect I think the BBC probably knows best. However, in conclusion, I believe this short debate will not only indicate the views of this House to the BBC when they review this experiment after Easter, but show with what close interest we all watch these broadcasts.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I have at least one thing in common, which is that neither of us is a member of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting. We therefore bring to these proceedings an eye which is uncommitted to the document we have before us. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I think that the conclusion, in so far as there is a conclusion, to which the report comes was an inevitable one. It seems to me that, within the present legal requirements, and within the resources which the BBC feels obliged to give to fulfil these requirements, the corporation is doing as much as it can be expected to do. I myself appear occasionally in the night-time proceedings—rarely, but occasionally—but I cannot easily recall an occasion on which the night-time proceedings quotation has been followed by a further quote in the morning. I really make no complaint about that. Within the present context I think my noble friend Lord Ardwick is right in saying that there must obviously and rightly be a priority given to the elected

1515
Chamber, and within the situation as it is at the present time we cannot expect to do much better than we do.
Our real problem is a rather wider one than this. It seems to me that in our rather meretricious society we are presenting inadvertently a picture of Parliament and its proceedings which, taken all over, is a falsehood. This is because even our newspapers have their own idea of how parliamentary proceedings should be presented, and presentation has now become more important than content. At one time The Times used to do a presentation of Parliament which was very dull indeed but extremely factual; it was rather like a condensed version of Hansard. But now even The Times deems it necessary, following modern fashion, to divide up, to present, to package. Our problem, therefore, is that we are becoming more package and less and less content all the time. The BBC, in its present change, is doing precisely that. It has decided that as far as the content is concerned it is too dull, and therefore it must be packaged and presented in a more palatable form so that it can be consumed by a wider audience in the morning. Therefore, I think it would be wrong to complain to the BBC.
What I think we ought to recognise is the inevitability of this process, because it is the way in which society is moving. There are some of us who, possibly as one of the consequences of growing old, do not like the way society is moving in certain respects, and this causes us to blame the corporation for something which, if we are prepared to accept the responsibility, must really devolve upon us. The fact of the matter is that if we want to arrest these packaging processes we can only do so by placing a legislative compulsion upon the corporation, or upon the broadcasting authorities more widely, perhaps, which will make them resist the way in which modern developments must necessarily drive them.
This raises the question whether there should be an obligation for a continuous programme on activities in parliament. This happens in some countries. In some countries there is a continuous record of what happens in Parliament, and it has a small but, of course, very interested audience. It has the advantage of providing a permanent record which is available to anyone, in the same sense as the permanent record which is taken in this Chamber is available to us. I believe there would be an advantage if it were possible for academic people concerned with politics, and for newspapers and for other people, to have available a cassette which they could use at any time, a recording, for historical reasons. That would be a development which would be of great advantage. The fact that it would attract, except on very special occasions, a rather small audience seems to me to be no argument against it.
My own view is that within the present context the corporation is doing all that could be expected of it. In order for it to do more we should have to require it to do more. We should have to say that there will be, possibly on VHF on a certain wavelength, a continuous record. That need not necessarily be very dull; the record could move from Chamber to Chamber, from committee room to committee room. It could be quite an entertaining programme for those
1516
who are interested in the subject. There are some people who are interested, and once you become interested in politics you become very interested. So the degree of interest by those who were listening would be very high indeed.
This is one factor which I think we do not measure enough. We are rather inclined to assume—the polls rather lead us into this procedure—that all degrees of interest are the same. Of course, they are not. It is possible to be slightly interested in something or deeply interested in it. The quality of interest in such a programme, although the numbers might be smaller, would be very high indeed.
The conclusion to which I come is that we must not blame the corporation for the fact that we do not require it to do more. Perhaps we ourselves in both Houses should look again at this question to see whether a change could be made whereby the corporation would go on doing what it is doing at present but there would be, as it were, a Hansard of the air which would be available in the same way as the printed Hansard. It would be our duty to create that Hansard of the air. I think it is time Parliament looked at that possibility.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I think I have more in common with him than with even my noble friend Lord Ferrier because not only was I not on the Select Committee but I did not even attend the meeting of it. I think the same applied to the noble Lord. I also find myself very much in agreement with the imaginative ideas that he put forward and I only wish he had limited his address to broadcasting matters instead of referring to some of the things on which we violently disagree.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrier, as others have done, and also the Select Committee on a very balanced report. On the whole I congratulate the committee on the conclusions that it was forced to reach, but particularly paragraph 9. My excuse for addressing your Lordships is that it fell to me to ask a Question of the Government on this matter on 29th November and much of what I have to say, which I hope will put some new ideas in the mind of the BBC, is in column 1060 of the Hansard for that date. I start by saying that I entirely agree, as others have done, that Today in Parliament—at whatever time—is an admirable programme and I hope that it will remain so. Also, for what it was originally intended to do I think that the Today programme is an excellent programme. However, I did say when asking a supplementary to my Question that I thought that perhaps it had a reputation as much for entertaining as for informing. I do not criticise it for that because I think that Messrs. Timpson and Redhead, and their good colleagues, are excellent at providing a special flavour to the news which makes it more interesting. But that is the news and I think that a parliamentary report, even if it is underpinned by Today in Parliament the night before, especially a parliamentary report with live transmissions of what we are actually saying, is required to provide news about parliamentary affairs rather than snippets of news about Parliament. I think that is where there is perhaps an error, but we have been over this ground before.

1517
To take the timing point and whether Today in Parliament at 11.30 p.m. is good enough, I wonder what the legal adviser to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees would have said if the BBC for some unpremeditated reason, instead of doing what they have done, had broadcast Today in Parliament at a respectable time of, say, 9 o'clock when everyone could hear it readily and conveniently, and had broadcast Today in Parliament at that time in the general format that we now have the morning broadcast, and put Yesterday in Parliament in the form that Today in Parliament now is—that is, a proper account of Parliament properly divided between the two Houses—at two o'clock in the morning to be listened to by the insomniacs, a few motorists and a few night workers who could take the time off.
I am making the point seriously. Would the fact that there has been a proper report at some time during the 24 hours have satisfied the legal advisers of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees? I rather suspect that without warning it might have done, from the sense of what he wrote, but I may be unfair in saying that. But the point is that it is not good enough for the BBC to feel that provided it has a good programme at some time, even if it is extremely late and very few people listen to it, that this would do.
The next point to bring out is the question of professional reporters. One sees, in the answer to Question 7 that the change in team for Yesterday in Parliament was to BBC political correspondents. I suggest that that might be satisfactory to persons in another place but I also suggest that it is not satisfactory to your Lordships. I say that for two good very practical reasons. The first point is that in the answer to Question 7 it was said that these political correspondents met Members of both Houses in their respective press areas. Your Lordships well know that in this House we do not have an effective press area. The question whether we should have and where it should be is another matter altogether on which I do not want to spend time now, but it might be necessary to tackle that later and for a different reason.
But the important point is that your Lordships' contribution—except for the contribution to the routine passage of a Bill through Parliament—is more in influencing Government in the longer term, and possibly even more fundamentally, rather than day-to-day and in the short-term. Hence, the kind of things that we know about and about which we can tell correspondents in regard to affairs and what is going on are understandably of considerably less interest to practically every journalist. That applies to radio journalists just as much as to others. So even if we did have a recognisable press area, because of the nature of our contribution—which in some ways is very fundamental and is not ready to be reported the next day—we still would not get the press people to come and talk to us. I do not know that that can readily be solved.
Therefore, I believe that Today in Parliament, and a morning version of it as it used to be, is of importance in getting across the value to the country of the working of this House. I am not in the least embarrassed about saying "the value to the country" because what your Lordships say and do is of great
1518
value to the country, regardless of where we sit in the House and of how long we sit here. But it is of more importance to us than it is to the Commons. I should like to leave what I have just said very much in the mind of the BBC because I believe I am right in saying that that particular aspect was not brought out at the meeting of the Select Committee and certainly was not apparent as being understood by it in any of the answers given by the BBC.
I briefly turn to the question of audiences. Here I referred to my pocket calculator and took the figures given in the answers to Questions 2 and 16. One finds, if the figures are accurate, that the morning audience in total is about 6.3 million; that for Radio 4 at the start of Yesterday in Parliament it is about 900,000 and at the finish of Yesterday in Parliament the audience used to be 575,000, or thereabouts; and for Today in Parliament it is between 150,000 and 200,000. From those figures it appears that even with the reduced numbers listening at the end of Yesterday in Parliament there are about three times as many as the average for the late night Today in Parliament broadcast. Furthermore, although there are probably some people who will listen to both programmes voluntarily—I stress "voluntarily" because they do not have to do so—it is surely equally probable that many, if not most, people who switch off or tune to Radio 1, Radio 2 or to local radio, as suggested by the BBC in answer to questions do so for reasons other than boredom, like going to work or wishing to get ready for Jimmy Young or whatever. So you are going to get a reduction on the programme whether you have a proper Yesterday in Parliament or not. In any case, what is wrong with a large—over half a million—audience for a specialised programme for a period, I would think, of 25 minutes, right at the end of the breakfast-time programmes? Even the rather doubtfully valuable and not altogether effective television breakfast programmes are starting to run down at that time.
To sum up, the present balance to convey a report on Parliament may technically meet Clause 13(2) of the BBC's licence of agreement, as probably a broadcast at 2 o'clock in the morning would also have done. However, it is questionable whether this meets the principle of Clause 13(2), as my noble friend Lord Ferrier said in his introductory speech, because it limits the proper presentation of the report of Parliament to a late night audience. The morning report seems to be agreed as not fulfilling Clause 13(2), and, by its nature, for reasons I have given, is involuntarily biased against this House rather than another place. I trust that the BBC will take account of the differences which I have outlined, when reviewing the present unsatisfactory arrangements, and make a change.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the Select Committee for their report and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for bringing the report to the attention of the House. All noble Lords will be very much aware of the noble Lord's perseverance over many years in pursuing this matter in various different ways. I know that he would like to see an obligation

1519
placed on one of the television channels to include a similar report each day.
Let me say at the outset that I agree with the final conclusion in paragraph 9 of the report in which the Select Committee say:
"In their opinion, it is most desirable that, whatever the outcome of the present experiment, there should be a more satisfactory coverage of Lords' proceedings in 'Yesterday in Parliament' ".
The objective reporting of your Lordships' debates does nothing other than enhance the prestige of your Lordships' House. If the reporting is reduced to a matter of triviality, it tends to debase the work of your Lordships' House. I appreciate, as other noble Lords have appreciated, the need for the BBC to produce a programme which will hold an audience at 8.35 in the morning. I feel on occasion that unnecessary triviality is indulged in. But I must say, as in fact I think one noble Lord has already mentioned, today's programme was a model programme when it reported our proceedings of yesterday. Indeed, I think that it was almost unique in that it reported a Lord's reaction to a Government statement which had been made in the Commons. It may be, of course, that the BBC were not unaware that your Lordships would be debating this matter this evening.
One of the burdens of the charges of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is that he felt that 11.30 in the evening was a bad time for listening and that it was too late, and, likewise, that 8.35 was too early in the morning. As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has said—and I must say that I agree with him—it would be impossible to find any time which is suitable to everybody. For myself, I find these times reasonably convenient. Indeed, if the programme was brought forward very much in the evening it would be impossible for the programme to be put together and to give the full coverage that it does.
I must say that I share the concern which several noble Lords have voiced that sometimes there is no coverage at all on the programme of the proceedings in your Lordships' House. I think we are right to insist that there should be some coverage each day in Yesterday in Parliament, of course in respect of days on which the Lords have been sitting as well as the Commons. I agree that the figure of 10 per cent., which was quoted in the report and reported by the Lord Chairman when he spoke in the debate, is a figure which is not good enough, although of course I would not disagree with my noble friend Lord Ardwick, who said that we must necessarily accept that the lion's share of the coverage will go to another place. But 10 per cent. does seem to be an excessively low figure. I understand—and, indeed, I have noticed this myself—that that figure has seen some improvement since this matter has been raised in your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Ardwick said that we should regard Yesterday in Parliament as a bonus. Indeed, he sympathised with the difficult task of the BBC in producing an editorialised programme. I think that we all accept that this is so, but I do not think that there is necessarily a problem of the programme being repetitive. It will very largely be a different audience who will be listening to the programme in the morning from the audience who will be listening to the
1520
programme in the evening. Therefore, if items are repeated I do not think that this is something that need cause concern to the BBC. If something is worth reporting both in Today in Parliament and Yesterday in Parliament, that is something which should be done and one should not be worried about the question of repetition.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney raised the question of continuous sound broadcasting. He admitted that this would have a small audience and felt that this is something which might be looked at in the future. He also raised the question of whether it was possible to obtain cassettes of the proceedings of Parliament. I understand that these cassettes are available and can be obtained and listened to. Indeed, over the years several noble Lords have spent considerable time to get right the exact inflexion of what was said in a particular debate by listening to a particular cassette.
We welcome the fact, as I have already said, that the experiment is being reviewed at the end of its initial period. I think that the programme Yesterday in Parliament is one that we would want to be beamed to as wide an audience as possible; it should be a programme which is serious, which is interesting, and which is not too trivial, But I think that, above all, the general feeling of your Lordships this evening is that when the BBC come to review it they should look closely at the amount of time that they devote in that programme to the work of your Lordships' House.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for giving us the opportunity to consider the report from the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting. My noble friend's interest in the broadcasting of Parliament is well known. Indeed, it is almost legendary, and it was at his suggestion, as well as a suggestion from other noble Lords, that last December this matter was specifically referred to the committee. I should like to congratulate the committee and its chairman on the brevity and clarity of the report. Its conclusion on the main question that it was asked is perfectly clear. The recent changes in the format of Yesterday in Parliament do not mean that the BBC is in breach of Clause 13(2) of its licence and agreement, because the Today in Parliament programme satisfies the obligation which has been placed upon it to broadcast a day-by-day account of proceedings in Parliament. Like other noble Lords, I think that that is worth stressing, because whatever may be the strength of feeling in the House on the new presentation, it is important not to lose sight of the clear conclusion of your Lordships' committee on that particular issue; and I am sure that the House will accept that conclusion.
Like your Lordships' House, the BBC is in the unenviable position of being in the public gaze, and whatever it does, it is criticised. On the whole I think that we can be very grateful to the BBC for fine and balanced reporting of our proceedings. I would only commend to the BBC the philosophy that I always have: you can never expect to do the right thing; all that you can hope to do is the least wrong.

1521
For all that, it is only right that as Deputy Leader of the House I should recognise the strength of feeling which clearly exists on this matter in all quarters of the House. This was best illustrated by the Starred Question that was asked on 29th November last by my noble friend Lord Mottistone; and the exchanges which then took place between noble Lords and my noble friend Lord Elton showed that the new experimental presentation had found few friends among your Lordships. My noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, all made their views known—and you cannot get much more formidable than that.
It was therefore quite proper for the committee to go a little wider than its strict remit, and to consider the experiment in more general terms, bearing in mind the strong feelings which your Lordships had expressed; and that the committee did. I commend the committee's conclusions to the House, and I, too, hope that during the Easter recess the BBC will reflect very carefully on the best format for the programme, in the light of both the report and what your Lordships have said today. I am sure that the BBC will, because it gave a very clear commitment to do so in answer to Question No. 29 in the Minutes of Evidence.
The two most important points are in paragraph 9 of the report. The first is that there should be a balance between the old format of reasonable thoroughness and objectivity, although with only a modest audience, and the new format of a more subjective report, prepared by correspondents, and attracting a wider audience. The second point is that, whatever may be the outcome of the review, there ought to be a more satisfactory coverage of the proceedings in your Lordships' House.
I think that most of us now welcome the broadcasting of Parliament, and in particular the inclusion of excerpts of our own debates. But I am bound to say that, as the report states, and as many noble Lords have said this afternoon, since last October there have been several occasions when the new version of Yesterday in Parliament has made no mention at all of the proceedings of the House of Lords. Frankly, I think that that must be wrong, and I do not see how the programme can claim to be a review of yesterday in Parliament if it deliberately, or even accidentally, excludes the proceedings in one House. After all, there are two Houses of Parliament, and a description, if only a factual one, of the work of this House seems to me to be absolutely essential if an assessment is to be given of yesterday in Parliament. If that means that the programme has to be extended for a few minutes, so be it. I was glad to see that in answer to Question No. 26 the BBC agreed to consider allocating a definite proportion of time to your Lordships' proceedings. If the BBC does that, it will be a major step forward.
I agree with many other noble Lords, and in no way would I suggest that in this regard we should have parity with another place. The other place is, as it were, the power house, and no one would deny that its business is of pre-eminent importance. But as Deputy Leader of this House I add my voice to those who
1522
would like to see the BBC ensure that proper time is given every morning to the House of Lords.
Those of us who have been in the House for some time have witnessed some fairly substantial changes in the way in which it carries out is responsibilities. There are more of us—many more. We talk longer—some much longer. We take important business. We sit increasingly long hours, though I hasten to add that in itself that is not a virtue, even if it is a disagreeable fact. We give the facility for all Bills to be discussed in toto, and on the Floor of the House—which does not happen in another place—including the Bills to which my noble friend Lord Cathcart referred, the details of which another place has not even had time to discuss.
It is generally considered that our debates are of a high standard, other than for the contributions that are made by the Deputy Leader, or the Minister of State for Agriculture. Those two gentlemen apart, the House is, if one may so put it, literally littered with experts on almost every subject. I think it fair to say that, except for a modicum of inevitable constant criticism, which I suppose can be regarded as part of the joys of life, the standing of the House in public life is as high as it has ever been, if not higher. I think that its value to public life is probably more greatly appreciated now than it ever was.
For all those reasons, now that the public have the means by which they can listen to the proceedings in Parliament, I am sure that most of us would consider that the BBC should ensure that the facility of listening to this House becomes a daily reality. I have no doubt at all that the BBC will take note of today's debate. I believe that at the end of the day the House must accept the advice which my noble friend Lord Elton gave on 29th November last, when he stressed that the BBC has editorial responsibility for all its programmes, including those covering parliamentary proceedings.
The format of Yesterday in Parliament is therefore wholly a matter within the BBC's discretion. But I am sure that on behalf of the House, I can say that it would be widely welcomed if the BBC would communicate its decision to the House after the Recess. I am sure that it will, since it so indicated in answer to the last question which was put to its representatives in giving their evidence. I hope that whatever is the conclusion, it will meet with the satisfaction of both the BBC and your Lordships.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, the handbook tells me that it is not up to the mover of a Motion "to take note" to withdraw the Motion. However, there are two things that I want to say. One is that both the Lord Chairman of Committees and myself were right about the meeting that was referred to. I think that I am right in saying that I kept my mouth shut until after the BBC people had withdrawn. So though I was present, it was only after they had gone that the Lord Chairman of Committees was kind enough to let me take part in the discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, spoke about a brief reference to the sitting of the House of Lords. My mind goes back 20 years, to when I first crossed swords with the BBC. I think that at that time the chairman was Lord Normanbrook. He said to me, "Tell me, what do you want us to report? You did

1523
nothing". I replied, "I beg your pardon. It is down in black and white in the Licence and Agreement. You need spend only 30 seconds, stating that 'the House of Lords also sat and considered the following matters'". That was that; and that has lasted ever since.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, talked about Yesterday in Parliament being rendered palatable. I do not know. I may have disparaged the Today programme, but I am a devotee. You should ask my wife. The only occasions when I switch it off are perhaps those moments described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, as rendering the programme more palatable—the saxophonic fanfare and the xylophone. When they are broadcast, I am inclined to switch off. It has to be remembered that Mr. Timpson is at it from 6.30 to 9 a.m., and that the programme is heard by about 9 million people, although they are not listening all the time. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stancu Papusoiu: Deportation
7.40 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain the circumstances under which Mr. Stancu Papusoiu was deported to Romania.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot recall having risen to my feet to discuss a more disturbing matter than this in my membership of your Lordships' House. It touches, in practical terms, only one individual, Mr. Stancu Papusoiu, a citizen of Romania. Going deeper, it touches our country's deepest traditions and moral values. Our tradition of political asylum goes back many centuries. One can recall that asylum was given in this country to the French Huguenots, who were persecuted for their religion, and to the victims of the French Revolution. Asylum was given in London, rightly, to Karl Marx and to Vladimir Lenin. Later in that century, asylum was given from persecution to many of the Jewish population of Tsarist Russia and, 30 years later, to many refugees from Hitlerism in Germany.
In our generation, we have seen the welcome given to refugees from Right-wing authoritarian dictatorships such as those of Chile and South Africa. No one has questioned the duty of successive Governments of this country to maintain this tradition of granting political asylum to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution for political reasons in the countries that they have fled. Rightly, we have viewed with abhorrence the idea of returning a person to his own country where he is liable to be persecuted for political reasons.
I recall some five years ago in this House the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, raising this matter over the question of several million Soviet citizens who were forcibly returned to their own country in 1945. A notable speech on that occasion was made by my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald. It was the first time that the British Parliament had paid attention to this matter. Subsequently, it was raised in another place on some dozen occasions. I am therefore pleased that
1524
your Lordships have found time to assist at the first detailed discussion of this case that touches, it is true, not millions of people but one individual who has been returned by force to a country that he fled and that he had a genuine fear of returning to, where he now is and where he is now suffering a fate of which we know very little.
I believe that what happened to Mr. Papusoiu is contrary not only to British traditions but also to many of our international obligations. I shall mention at this stage Article 14 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in paragraph 1:
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution".
I shall return to that document later.
Mr. Stancu Papusoiu was a man without sophistication, without great education, speaking only one little known language, a person who had previously been imprisoned for attempting to leave Romania and a person who went to great lengths to leave Romania. I wish to emphasise this point. It was put to the Home Office by the secretary general of Amnesty International, Mr. Hammarberg. I do not believe that Mr. Papusoiu would have gone to such lengths and that his motivation would have been so deep as to induce him to go to prison at least once and to risk further imprisonment simply in order to improve his material situation, to lead a materially better life and to increase his wages. Such an idea is absurd. I believe that the Home Office has been, let us say, naive in suggesting that Mr. Papusoiu's motives were mainly commercial when he came to this country.
I believe that many of us here are familiar with this case. Mr. Papusoiu surrendered to the police. He did not try to evade the authorities of this country. He was imprisoned, or detained, in Ashford Remand Centre. He said that he found life unacceptable under Romania's Communist régime and that he did not wish to work 10 hours a day in order to find a bare wage for his family. Four months elapsed in Ashford before he had a chance to discuss his problem with anyone other than officials of the Home Office and the officers of Ashford. It is true—no doubt my noble friend Lord Elton, who has no personal responsibility for this matter, will point it out—that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' representative, Mr. Landau, was informed of Mr. Papusoiu's arrival. But, so far as I can see, no action was taken and no person saw Mr. Papusoiu outside British officialdom until 2nd September when he was visited by a member of the British-Romanian Association.
My first question to Lord Elton is this. Would it not have been better—I know that it is contrary to practice at the moment—but would it not have been advisable for at least the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to be informed of Mr. Papusoiu's arrival in Ashford? Under present regulations, because he entered this country illegally, I appreciate that he is not obliged to inform the UKIAS about such an arrival. I believe that there is a case here for reviewing the present custom and for informing the Immigrants Advisory Service of the arrival of any person who enters this country and whose case is being considered by the Home Office.
Another subject of deep concern is the circumstances of Mr. Papusoiu's detention. It is true that he was penniless and friendless. He had no means to provide himself with accommodation. Is that really sufficient reason for his detention in Ashford for more than six months? While his case was being considered—the evidence seems to suggest that he had trust in the United Kingdom and that he believed that England was a country that would show some sympathy—was it really suspected that he would abscond? Would it not have been possible for him to be found accommodation, for instance, in the place where he was eventually allowed to reside in a YMCA hostel in South-East London? Was it necessary for him to be kept under the unfamiliar and disorientating conditions for someone so unfamiliar with British reality as Ashford Remand Centre for such a long time?
I also wonder whether my noble friend can say something about the general question of refugees from Romania. I note from statistics recently put out by his department that last year 26 individuals asked for political asylum from Romania. Is that really the figure? Can he say what has happened to those 26 individuals? Has any one of them, other than Mr. Papusoiu, been forcibly removed back to Romania? Could my noble friend please tell us that? Could he indicate, please, starting from a base period of 1950 (and I have given him notice of this question) how many individuals from Soviet bloc countries—from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and the Soviet Union—have been forcibly removed back to their own country since 1950, since the policy of forcible removal initiated in 1945 finally became dead and buried? I think that public opinion would be interested to hear the answer to that fundamental question.
Many people have been revolted by the idea of a person being sent back to Ceausescu's Romania. People cannot understand that such a thing can happen in our country. We wish to know whether it has happened before. We know that seven Poles were made to return to Poland in 1981, it is true before martial law was declared. We have heard, perhaps, that some Hungarians were made to return last year. But when it comes to the two countries in the bloc with the harshest regimes, with the harshest laws against immigration, where slave labour is practised—Romania and the Soviet Union—have any people been forcibly returned to those two countries before? Or is Mr. Papusoiu the tragic first person to have been so sent back?
I would mention that of course this is a matter which also touches the United Nations' laws against slavery, because slave labour is employed both in the Soviet Union and in Romania. This is the 150th anniversary of the year when we abolished slavery in this country and the death of William Wilberforce. Did we really make the right decision in sending a person back to where he will most probably be sentenced to a term of slave labour, in this year of all years? I look forward to my noble friend's reply.
I hope that this whole unfortunate incident will lead to a total reappraisal of our policy vis-à-vis refugees from Eastern Europe. Figures recently released show that the number of refugees from the Soviet bloc who
1526
are accorded political asylum has declined in percentage terms over the past few years. In 1982 only 11.4 per cent. of those from Soviet bloc countries who applied for asylum were granted asylum—that was the figure quoted in the Sunday Times two days ago—whereas of those who applied for asylum across the board from other countries, mainly Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, 56 per cent. were granted asylum. This is a most alarming discrepancy. Why is it that those persons who seek asylum from the Soviet bloc seem to be treated far less generously than those who come from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?
I believe that my noble friend should also answer certain practical questions about Mr. Papusoiu's fate. Why, for instance, after he was peremptorily arrested two days before his removal, was it not found possible for someone at least to collect his few belongings from the YMCA and to give them to him before he left this country? What measures have now been put in force to send them on to him? Will he receive his belongings now through the favours of, I suppose, the Foreign Office and our embassy in Bucharest? Could my noble friend please also indicate the details of the approach made to the Romanian foreign ministry a few days ago by our ambassador in Bucharest? It seems, on the face of it, unusual for an ambassador to make such an approach, and I think that your Lordships would be glad to have further information about this approach in the Romanian capital and about the answer that was given to our ambassador by the Romanian foreign ministry.
I believe that my honourable friend Mr. David Waddington made an honest mistake, but a tragic mistake. He wrote to my honourable friend Sir Bernard Braine, apropos the Romanian laws that prevent and deeply inhibit citizens from leaving their country contrary to United Nations declarations, that, "Such laws in my mind are deplorable but they do not constitute persecution". I believe that in making this judgment he did not take account of Article 13 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says:
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country".
The United Kingdom voted for that declaration, and, surely, it must recognise that Mr. Papusoiu had the right to leave his country if he wished to do so; that the Romanian Government, his own Government, in denying him that right, were persecuting him; that he was therefore a persecuted person as well as a prosecuted person; and that, therefore, he was entitled to sympathetic consideration by my noble friend's department. I wish to make no criticism and to cast no aspersion on the integrity of my honourable friend Mr. David Waddington; but I believe that he made a disastrous error and that public opinion believes that he made a disastrous error.
I have spoken of the British tradition of political asylum. There is another very important British tradition—one which came to the fore most strikingly almost exactly a year ago when the conflict in the Falklands took place—and that is the tradition of ministerial responsibility. My noble friend Lord Carrington, a man of the highest honour, took the view that he was seen by the country to have made an error—a serious error. He therefore decided, in all

1527
honour, that he had to give up the seals of his office. I believe that the Minister of State in the Home Office who took this decision must conclude that, while he behaved honourably, he made a serious and tragic error which will have even more tragic consequences for an individual, Mr. Stancu Papusoiu; and I can see no possible alternative open to him than for him also to resign his office.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is late in the evening but the business that we are discussing tonight is so miserable and of such importance that we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for raising it. Practically every newspaper of whatever political view going straight across the spectrum—The Times, the Guardian, the Mail, the Telegraph, the Mirror and the Express—has come out on the same side, and that is in criticism of the action that was taken by the Government, the Home Office or individual Ministers in this tragic case.
This is the first debate on this matter that has taken place in Parliament. The honourable Member in another place, Sir Bernard Braine, raised it most vocally there, and Questions have been asked. However, as I say, this is the first time that this has been debated. What is it that we are discussing? As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, we are discussing a man who arrived in this country illegally in April 1982, who went to a police station not really to give himself up but in order to ask for asylum in the hope of being treated kindly in this free country. But, my Lords, what transpired? He was kept in a police cell for a few days which, due to our prison overcrowding, must, unhappily, have seemed reminiscent accommodation of his own home detention conditions. He was then sent to the Ashford Remand Centre and released from there on 5th December, when he went to a YMCA hostel, from where he reported to the immigration authorities once a week. He was then arrested and speedily sent back very much against his wishes—to put it mildly.
Many questions arise. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has raised some, but there are others as well. Why was not the British Romanian Association or one of the refugee bodies alerted?—especially as Mr. Papusoiu is not well educated. I understand that he speaks Romanian with a regional accent and had problems in being interpreted properly. Why did he not have access to advice and assistance, as recommended by the Council of Europe? One cannot help feeling that if he had been a writer, a professional man or a sportsman, he would very likely have received rather different treatment. I do not like to say that, but I think the facts show.
As it is the declared policy of British Governments to grant asylum to refugees if there is reason to assume that they will suffer persecution if they are sent back, does this mean that the Home Office was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was not in danger of persecution? If the Government were so convinced, then on what grounds were they so convinced? This is what we should like to hear from the Minister tonight. If not, why was he imprisoned at all; and why was he not given the benefit of the doubt, and at least given
1528
some form of asylum or treated as a refugee? He could have been a refugee without being given political asylum. He could have had asylum and we need not have become bogged down in the whole concept of politics in this case.
However, is it not true that under the harsh régime existing in Romania, to escape from that country is labelled a serious crime which merits very severe punishment? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and with Amnesty International, that in the case of a man who has been imprisoned for nine out of the past 10 years there is surely evidence that he is really doing more than trying to improve his standard of living. Is it not also true that unofficially, given time, organisations like the British Romanian Association could have arranged to send him to a country which would have taken him in? This is especially so since the international convention relating to the status of refugees, by which the United Kingdom is bound, peremptorily forbids deporting someone to a country where his life or liberty will be in danger for reasons other than the commission of "common crimes". This was pointed out most succinctly in a letter to The Times by Mr. Paul Sieghart. But none of these courses was open.
We know of other people in this situation who have gone to France or to Holland and the Government here have been quite happy—and I am sure relieved—to see them just disappear and go. But not in this case. The statement of the Minister of State, Mr. David Waddington, that he was not a Romanian seems to me to have been both post facto and also not very positive.
Lord Elton: My Lords, for the record, I should state that I think the noble Baroness meant that my honourable friend suggested that he was not a refugee; not that he suggested that he was not a Romanian.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I just put it forward that it was reported in the newspapers that the Romanian Embassy here said that he was not a Romanian.
Nevertheless, my next point, that he had said that he was not a refugee, seems to me not to have been backed up by any specific evidence or any evidence which was good enough for the action to be taken which resulted in this man being forcibly ejected from this country.
There also arises here the question of rights of appeal, which are very unsatisfactory. An illegal immigrant has no right of appeal until after deportation. There may be a little stretch in this if someone is sent back to a country from where they can make representations to a high commissioner in that country and from where they can make representations if the country is part of the larger Commonwealth. But to imagine that someone can appeal from Romania is absolute nonsense. One hopes that one of the results of this very unhappy case will be that something will be done about the question of appeals, which I believe the Home Office have been examining.
In a fairly recent judgment in the House of Lords in the cases of Khawaja and Kera the Law Lords said:
"The right of appeal is virtually valueless."
Would it not be preferable for the Government to admit that there had been a dreadful series of

1529
misunderstandings, lack of communication and great insensitivity resulting in a human tragedy, rather than for the Government to stand by whatever they consider to be their rights, or the right as they see it, which does not appear to be recognised by anybody else, and to defend the indefensible?
The only encouraging aspect of this depressing drama is that so much outrage has been expressed. We live in a country which values freedom enormously and which considers it something very precious. It is imperative that our actions should always equal our beliefs.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for raising this important matter and for enabling us in particular to discuss the way in which the Home Office reached the decision in the case of Mr. Papusoiu, and in general the way in which it evaluates claims to refugee status by persons arriving at ports of entry or who may already be in the United Kingdom in some other capacity.
I think that we should also pay tribute to the work of the honourable Member, Sir Bernard Braine, not only in this case but in so many other cases of refugees and of human rights in general on which he works so hard. So far as I can ascertain we last debated the question of refugees in this country five years ago in May 1978. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has done this evening, we were then paying tribute to the generous treatment which is accorded to refugees by this country. I think we should repeat now that, on the whole, we can be very proud of our record.
We have done our share in taking in the victims of mass persecution—people rendered homeless and destitute by the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Asians from Uganda, the Vietnamese boat people and now those fleeing from the atrocities committed by the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. I believe that we have honoured our obligation under the United Nations convention to admit persons fleeing their own country owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Indeed, we go further, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has reminded us, in a time-honoured tradition we offer hospitality to those who cannot establish a claim to refugee status. We give asylum when, on the balance of probability, a person's fear is well-founded, and we give exceptional leave to remain where the fear is not individual but arises from extensive and random violations of human rights by the régime concerned, as in the case of Iran, and generally speaking Romania as well.
My own experience of taking up refugee cases with the Home Office is that Ministers look at individual cases with enormous care and sympathy. I have ascertained that since the last general election I have taken up 75 such cases with the Home Office and in 48 of those submissions the persons have been allowed to remain, only seven have been refused, and 20 are still under consideration. But there have been some general cases which have caused anxiety. I wonder, as I do in all cases of refusal of leave to enter or remain, whether
1530
the experience of those who do not have someone to make representations on their behalf to the Minister is as favourable as mine.
I am worried, for example, about the case of Iranians sent back to their country. A young girl of 16, for example, was very nearly sent back recently, and only after my honourable friend the Member for Inverness intervened with the Minister was it finally agreed that she should be allowed to stay. Another young man is in the Ashford Remand Centre—not a very pleasant place, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said—awaiting his fate at the moment, having been convicted of a series of minor offences culminating with criminal damage to the value of £50, and it is proposed that he be sent back to take his chances under the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Secondly, I am concerned at the treatment of asylum seekers from Pakistan. It seems to me that in those cases the Home Office takes far longer to decide their applications than those of any other nationality. In the case of one refugee whose interview was conducted on 8th June 1981 consideration is still being given to it, and the Minister's office told me in a letter the other day that it had not been possible to reach a decision as speedily as they would have liked. That goes for the applicant himself as well.
Thirdly, there have been problems with Eritrean refugees who come here via Sudan, and the Home Office always tries hard to return them. In this, I am sorry to say, it is abetted by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. It seems wrong to me that these young people should be barred from the chance that they have in life through establishing themselves in this country, when the Home Office decides to send them back to rot in a refugee camp, as they would in Sudan. I hope that consideration can be given to these cases.
We have made some progress in the last few years. The immigration rules have been amended so as to require that full account be taken of the provisions of the Convention and Protocol in deciding on an application for asylum at ports of entry, while for somebody who is already in the country the rules say that a person may apply for asylum in the United Kingdom on the ground that if he were required to leave he would have to go to a country to which he is unwilling to go owing to "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". The rules now repeat the phraseology of the Convention.
Therefore, if a person arrives at a port of entry without a visa or an entry certificate, as refugees almost invariably do, the application nevertheless falls to be considered on its own merits, and the same goes for a person who applies, having entered the country illegally, or having overstayed, as was the case, I understand, with Mr. Papusoiu. May I remind your Lordships of what was said by the then High Commissioner for Refugees in a note to his executive committee in October 1977, and repeated in the United Kingdom representative's note to Her Majesty's Government shortly after that. He had this to say:
"It should be mentioned that an applicant for refugee status is normally in a particularly vulnerable situation. He finds himself in an alien environment and may experience serious psychological difficulties in submitting his case to the authorities of a foreign

1531
country, often in a language not his own. Hence the need for his application to be examined within the framework of specially established procedures by qualified personnel having the necessary knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and of the applicant's particular difficulties and needs".
What was required, according to this memorandum, was that six principles should be satisfied by the procedures; that border officials should have clear instructions; that they should refer cases to higher authority; that the applicants should receive guidance on procedures; that there should be an identified authority to take the first decision; that the applicant should be granted the necessary facilities for submitting his case; and that the unsuccessful applicant should be able to appeal to judicial or administrative authority as appropriate, and should be allowed to remain pending the determination of his case unless the request was clearly frivolous.
In the debate we had five years ago the Minister who answered said that he thought our procedures were broadly in line with those recommendations. But, with respect, they are not. They were not then; they still are not today, as the case of Mr. Papusoiu illustrates. On the instructions given to immigration officers, of course, we are still in the dark because the Home Office, under both Tory and Labour Administrations, refuses to publish them. But I believe that they require the immigration officer to refer to higher authority; and it would be useful to know whether that is still the case, whether the Minister could confirm this, and whether any instructions are given to immigration officers about referring to the applicant's embassy for information about him, as I believe was done as long ago as last November in the case of Mr. Papusoiu.
Obviously there are cases where the applicants are not given any guidance, but there is no obligation on the immigration officers to inform them of the agencies which could help them, or to give them facilities for using the telephone for this purpose. Nor can it be said that they have the necessary facilities for pursuing their cases if they are held in detention, as was Mr. Papusoiu. Generally speaking, temporary admission is granted, but there have been cases where an applicant is held quite unnecessarily for months on end. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House—and I gave him notice of this question—how many asylum seekers have been held at ports of entry for more than a week over the last five years, and of the asylum seekers who were granted temporary admission over this period, how many absconded. I believe that the number would be very small, and that therefore normally we should give temporary admission generously to people seeking asylum.
I believe that in this particular case the immigration authorities held Mr. Papusoiu in detention because no request had been made for temporary admission on his behalf. This, in turn, may have been because the British Romanian Society were not aware of their rights to make such representations. I was told that the Minister, in answering a question at the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service annual conference over the weekend took credit for notifying the society at some point in these proceedings. He did thus concede that the Home Office had a responsibility to alert some outside agency when a refugee is held. But the proper authority in these matters is the UKIAS
1532
Refugee Unit, which has the competence to deal with cases expeditiously and properly. I would like to pay tribute here to Ms. Maureen Connelly and her staff for the effective work they always do on behalf of asylum seekers.
Coming to the last of the six principles, where the UKIAS considers the applicant's case is not entirely frivolous, there ought to be an independent procedure for testing the claim. If the applicant was previously in the United Kingdom in some other capacity and applied for refugee status while he was still within his permitted leave to remain, for example, as a student, then of course he would have access to an independent adjudicator under the immigration rules.
In the Home Office's discussion document, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, reminded us, Review of Appeals under the Immigration Act 1971, it was proposed two years ago that illegal entrants should be given a right of appeal if they have been in the United Kingdom for more than a certain period, and I think that would be desirable. If the applicant only had a right of appeal which was exercisable from overseas, as would be the case with overstayers and illegal entrants, then of course, as the noble Baroness reminded us, it would be too late because they would have some difficulty in applying from a Romanian prison, and perhaps even more so from an Iranian cemetery.
To be fully in conformity with the convention we ought now to grant a right of appeal to all non-trivial claimants for asylum, and this right ought to be a right of appeal to the adjudicator who might seek the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' representative to help him in determining such claims. Then, arguments such as those deployed tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, could be put to an impartial tribunal.
Because we have such a long tradition of civilised behaviour towards people fleeing persecution in their own lands, we have been prepared in the past to leave this matter entirely to Home Office Ministers and, on the whole, that system has worked because successive Ministers, including Mr. David Waddington, have continued to uphold that tradition. But it is wrong in principle for the Secretary of State, whose policy is to limit the entry of foreigners into Britain, to be in charge of these sensitive decisions. Whatever the merits of Mr. Papusoiu's case, it has focused our attention on a serious flaw in our procedures for evaluating claims for asylum, and I hope that it will now be remedied.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, this is a sorry occasion. Although the Minister may mitigate our sorrow in some small degree, that is, I calculate, the best he can hope to do. I am in a personal difficulty because I have known the Minister most closely concerned—my honourable friend Mr. David Waddington—even longer than I have known my noble friend Lord Elton, and that acquaintance has led me to like, admire and feel affection for them both. That cannot prevent me from stating as a parliamentarian that on the morning of Monday 14th March something pretty foul was done at the hands of their

1533
ministry, a department which acts in the name of the British people.
My noble friend Lord Bethell has been painfully but incontestably justified in setting down this Unstarred Question, backed, as he has been, by sensitive and highly informed speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Part of the formula of the Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House, is that the Government have the last word and the questioner has no right of reply. In some cases this provides solace and a quiet night for the Government spokesman, but I doubt if it will do so in this case. Unless some unexpectedly convincing reply is provided, the Minister, his colleagues, his department and the Government whom that department advises will be pursued day beyond fearful day and night beyond sleepless night by such of us as feel ill-supplied with the facts or still hostile to the action taken in the face of those facts. We may be fairly numerous. We may be persistent. We may be intolerable. But in no way can our views and convictions easily be shrugged off.
The matter to which I shall in particular address myself is directly related to the present circumstances of the wretchedly treated Romanian whose wretched treatment has incited this debate. I shall address myself to the anguish and panic which this act has caused to other refugees from central and eastern European countries at present living in this country. The majority of them are Poles and although I am not claiming that the Poles have a unique claim on our hospitality and protection, there are many factors which make our debt to them even clearer than our duty to other oppressed fellow Europeans.
I believe there are about 900 Poles living in this country, having sought refuge from Poland during the period of martial law. They suffer through an intense fear of being forcibly deported and returned to their own country, as was the hapless Romanian victim 13 days ago. It is ironic to consider that the Poles, so prodigiously valiant in the face of the enemy, should be rendered fearful by their friends and fellow countrymen. Of course we cannot tell, without being Members of the Government, how justified or otherwise their fear may be, but let there be no doubt that that fear exists.
The present Home Secretary is as kindly a man as I have ever known in political life. A few weeks ago he sent a message, through a Member of another place, to a press conference in which I took part. The message contained an assurance that the Government had no intention for the time being of forcibly returning Poles who have been living in this country to Poland. Because they have learned to live with fear, many Poles have found the term"for the time being" suspect. Indeed, it cannot be measured in English, let alone transalated into Polish. It would be wrong in this debate to introduce at great length the forms of repression which still exist in Poland after the apparent lifting of martial law, and it may be necessary to hold a separate debate in one form or another to spell out the cynicism which underlies the public relations exercise—for it was little more than that—of removing martial law.
1534
I feel no compunction at having introduced into this debate the inflexion of fear which has spread through refugees of many countries, bred by the deportation of Stancu Papusoiu. In the past week, instigated particularly by men fleeing from the "Stefan Batory", the Polish ship, the Poles have been recognised as persecuted for the first time since martial law ended, and the media in general have taken the matter up in a fine and reasonable manner. They have recognised the agony and injustice which, I believe, may merit another debate on Poland. But for the moment, at this hour, we are debating the Romanian tragedy which my noble friend Lord Bethell has raised.
There is an illusion—widespread, unrealistic and unhealthy—that Romania is the most independent of the satellite nations. That is intrinsically false for the people concerned. The Government of Ceaucescu give the impression of acting independently of the Soviet rulers. That is possible only because that Government are the most Stalinist of those which now dominate those nations beyond the Iron Curtain which share with us the European heritage without sharing the freedom which should be inseparable from that heritage.
The deportation two weeks ago of that frightened man of 29 was a beastly act. So we must perceive it, unless the Minister can astonish us this evening with some contradiction of which nobody so far has seen the faintest evidence. Unless he can do so, some promise must be offered or extracted that we are aware of the ill which has been wrought and that it will never willingly or knowingly be repeated.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: First, my Lords, I must say how much I was moved and impressed by the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. He covered the situation in the greatest detail, and I have little to add to what he said except that I promise solid support from this Bench for the implications of all he had to say. Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made an excellent speech, and in particular raised the point, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about appeals. That is an issue to which we shall have to return, although it is not a subject with which we need deal tonight.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who knows a great deal more about immigration problems than I do, and more than most people do, gave us a most interesting dissertation on the dangerous implications of what is going on at the moment in spite of the fact that he gave quite generous acclaim to some of the actions of both this Government and the previous Government in relation to refugees. Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, brought up something which has always been quite near my heart, which is the troubles of the Poles. I am not going to talk about any of these things. I do not think that any of them is irrelevant, however. They have all added to the discussion that we are having.
I want to say that it is quite evident—and in my opinion it is obviously justifiable—that there is great hostility in the House to this action by the Government, both in general and in certain of its particulars. To send somebody innocent of anything which we can admit to be a crime, and in breach of

1535
Article 13 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to certain imprisonment behind the Iron Curtain seems to be almost impossible to defend. But some of the accompanying details appear inexcusable. What right had the police to arrest this man when he had committed no crime? It is not a crime to say that you will not obey a Home Office ruling to go back until you have actually failed to turn up at the airport at the time stated. On whose authority was this uncriminal man handcuffed in the immigration office? Handcuffing is an assault on human dignity which should be permitted only in serious criminal cases. Can the Minister tell us at what level of police authority this order was issued?
I see from the papers that the Home Office denies that he was frogmarched to the aeroplane. Was he, nevertheless, led there reluctantly and in handcuffs; and, if so, what is the difference? To whom was he presented in this sad condition—to the Romanian secret police? Did they give back the handcuffs to Securicor and put their own on, as happened to Bakunin's fetters at the frontier when he was transferred from a Hapsburg to a Tzarist jail? That was noted by Herzen, who also noted particularly the meanness of the Austrians, who would not even let their pair of fetters go. Did he fly all the way to Romania in handcuffs? I am sure that the Minister cannot answer these questions, but the very asking of them highlights the cruelty of the operation.
I, too, like other speakers, have a high appreciation of the liberal attitude of the Home Secretary and the difficulties under which he operates, and I will not specify further. I appreciate that he cannot do less than stand behind his junior Minister and his department, on whom the real blame rests. But as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pointed out, he has made a great hole in our reputation as a country which will accept all sorts and conditions of refugees.
Our steady retreat from being such a country where any refugee would be welcome—and this is not within the term of office of this Government only; it has been going on for some time—to one where we will not even allow an extra fortnight for the victim's friends to find a home for him elsewhere (as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was told by the British-Romanian Society) is lamentable. There will, of course, be a technical justification of this harsh action which the noble Lord will have to give us; but it was certainly a very marginal case. I believe that no one would have criticised the Minister or the Government if he had had the patience and the decency to give a few weeks' grace before sending a man, innocent in our law, to certain imprisonment under a regime he hates and which can be expected to punish him severely.
8.35 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I came to this debate equipped not with a speech but with a list of questions. I have been ticking them off as other noble Lords have asked them until I think only three or four remain. Before I put my questions to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, may I make one general point? Like other speakers I feel an infinity of pity for this unhappy man. If half of his life story, as I have been given it, is true,
1536
he clearly has an incontestible claim on our compassion. He obviously detests life in Romania à la Ceauçescu and who will blame him? There are—and the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, touched on this—certain misconceptions about Romania in some people's minds. Just because the president occasionally displays a certain cautious independence in foreign policy, it does not follow, as some people outside this House seem to think, that, should he miraculously be translated into this House, he will automatically gravitate towards these Liberal Benches. I do not think that this is so. All the information that I can gather is that he runs what his Kremlin boss might approvingly describe as "a good tight ship"; in other words, as oppressive a régime as any in the Soviet sphere of influence.
I am sorry—we are all sorry—for Stance Papusoiu; I am sorry for all Romanians outside the party apparat. In Utopia, perhaps, we could offer refuge to them all. But Utopia, by definition, is not where we live. In the real world, in which, perforce, we live, refugees have to fulfil certain conditions. I have consulted people who live and work with refugees all the time and who know far more about the regulations than I ever could. If I am to be honest—and on this very important matter one must be honest, as, I hope, on others—I have to say that I am persuaded that this man did not fulfil the necessary conditions and did not have a valid, legal claim to refugee status. I do not enjoy saying this. It would give me far more emotional satisfaction to go all the way with the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Saint Oswald; but in honesty, I cannot.
It follows that it is not the fact of his repatriation which has brought me to my feet, but the manner of it and the way he was treated beforehand; and certain gaps which his case seems to me to have shown up in our procedures for dealing with these matters. These are the things which have prompted the questions which I wish to put to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I have no doubt that he will deal with the allegations of the beating up in the Ashford Remand Centre. Of course, he will; he has to do so. But my question is specific. Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to resort to forcible feeding of detained asylum seekers who refuse to eat? This is an abominable prison practice which I thought we had abandoned. Am I right or wrong? My second question is this. Was this man informed at an early stage that he had a right to make contact with UNHCR?
Thirdly, is the noble Lord satisfied with the quality of the interpreters available at the Immigration Department at the Home Office? If he is not, what will be done to improve it? Lastly, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, more or less put this question but perhaps I may be forgiven for putting it again in case Lord Elton has not fully grasped it, can he suggest to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary that it should be standard practice that, whenever an asylum seeker is detained, the Home Office will immediately inform UNHCR, the British Refugee Council or the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service? Their London addresses are well known to the Home Office. If that suggestion could be implemented and built into the procedures, it would greatly reduce the inevitable stress, fear and anxiety of future newly-

1537
arrived asylum-seekers, of whom I fear there will be no shortage.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Hale: My Lords, of course we all wish to thank the noble Lord who opened the debate and those who have followed him. I propose for a few minutes just to state my own limited connection with the matter because I think things can get a little out of perspective. On 5th November last, the then acting chairman of the Anglo-Romanian Association—an organisation of high repute—wrote to the Prime Minister calling attention to the problems of Romanian refugees. There was then no question whatever of hiding their own views and those who are determined or desperate enough will find in the end the means to escape, even if they endanger their lives in the process or risk brutal treatment or imprisonment if caught.
The British-Romanian Association, through a personal friend of mine who is well known to many parliamentarians and a man of absolute probity, rang me up and asked whether I could take any essential measures because the British-Romanian Association were worried about two men then in Ashford Centre, about whose legal position there was great doubt.
I was consulted on the 13th November; I saw the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at a most inconvenient time for him, when he was about to answer Questions. I put the problem to him in a second or two and was immediately and most courteously given the name and address of his secretary. The noble Lord said the secretary would give me all the help he could; and, roughly speaking, that is what followed. The next thing that happened was perhaps the appearance on the scene of the man higher up. There is no question, when they talked about Sir Timothy Raison being appointed to take over all the cases so far as that particular classification of refugees was concerned, that the instructions came from the Prime Minister.
I waited to see whether Sir Timothy Raison was going to introduce a new régime of toughness. I was rather surprised that he did not. So far as I am concerned, the letters which I have here were courteous and helpful. Sir Bernard Braine, who had been instructed a day or two before me, was writing on the same lines and in fact they were replying at that early period with the same sort of letter saying, for example, "We have had a letter from Sir Bernard Braine." I saw no difference whatever so far as Sir Timothy was concerned.
One point did arise, In the course of making representations I was told that Mr. Papusoiu had commenced a hunger strike. I passed that to the authorities and about two days later I had a note—this time from Sir Timothy Raison's secretary—to say that he had indeed commenced a hunger strike but had given it up. He apparently gave it up absolutely peacefully after four days. It is a serious matter and it is strange that the Ashford Centre had not called the attention of the Home Office to this matter until I sent the message through that something was serious.
The letter to which I wish to draw attention is dated 8th December. It was from the Home Office to me and I think an almost identical one was sent to Sir Bernard Braine. It is signed by Sir Timothy Raison and finishes by saying:
1538
"Consideration was given to the temporary admission of Mr. Milea and Mr. Papusoiu but they were without funds and had no friends or relatives in this country who could accommodate them. Moreover, because of their deliberate evasion of the immigration control of this and other European countries we could not be satisfied that they would comply with the terms of temporary admission. However, the UKIAS has now offered to arrange to look after them, and in view of the length of time it is taking to resolve this case I have agreed that they should be granted temporary admission. I must emphasise, however, that this does not affect my decision that neither qualifies to remain in this country".
I took advice and plainly that was an intimation that there was a possibility of drastic steps being taken. I do not believe anyone can feel that that paragraph itself conveys more threat than hope; and indeed Mr. Milea, whose interests were in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was able to make arrangements for his own protection in France where he had friends and where a political organisation arranged for his reception. So this was not a final termination but it was a warning that something might happen. I have only undertaken to deal with the aspect of two men in previous danger who now have been released.
I immediately saw Miss Connelly of the UKIAS. I saw my client and pointed out the impossibility of my going further with the case after a prolonged illness, when I had no means of transport, could not speak the language and had no special knowledge of the law. I arranged that the matter should be handed over at once to a firm of solicitors—I am not myself a solicitor—and that was done. From that moment, although I indicated that if there was any assistance I could give I would do so, the matter was put in other hands and I certainly took no further part in it; nor, indeed, could I usefully have done so. I think that the course I took was right, and other people think that way.
I must repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. Miss Maureen Connelly said that in this highly complicated law she became functus officio, by the release from detention of the two Romanians, because her ambit of rule applied only to those in the very limited circumstance of people detained in that way, but, notwithstanding that, she went on to do all she could, and indeed displayed some of the qualities of Florence Nightingale in doing so.
I am therefore extremely sorry to appear ungenerous in my remarks about Mr. Waddington, however great a friend he may be of the two noble Lords opposite, who have bravely said that, for all practical purposes, he ought to go. I would remind the House that Mr. Waddington took over the constituency of Nelson and Colne on the death of a Romanian Jew Member, who had served them for 30 years and whose name had become famous throughout the world as a personal sanctuary of justice for all suffering trouble. Do not let me contribute to the pleasure of noble Lords opposite in that way. Sydney Silverman was a man of very great fame. His father was a Romanian refugee who came to this country in the 'nineties of the last century and his name will live in political circles for many years to come. Mr. Waddington had the chance of learning a little about the right of asylum and the duty of asylum.
I do not quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord McNair. It is possible to say, in dealing with this highly complicated matter, that it may be that there was a case for

1539
saying there was no automatic right against deportation. Mr. Waddington chose to add sneers—an infamous thing—to his criticism of this young man. He really does not appear to have put forward any reasons, and, in the mass of material that has appeared in the newspapers since then, with The Times and the Sunday Times in the van, the expression of indignation has been such that it must be accepted that it is, very largely, the view of the country.
I had hoped to give particulars of some of the grievances. The country will demand to know what were the negotiations with the Romanian Embassy which, if it be true, poured out information about how this Government tried to get permission to put these men through the Embassy. I am not quite clear why that could not be done under the law. Almost laughingly they said, "We were never asked for them". Did they ever ask for them? Did they say that they would take them? Were they asked to take them? Were they asked whether they had any alternative suggestion for disposing of these men, whom they did not want? How many other people were asked? I am afraid that the questions must go on.
If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will forgive the familiarity, I personally acquit him of any blame whatsoever in the matter. I think that he was one of a series of Ministers dealing with this matter. It started with the noble Lord who was handling this matter at the time of the last Labour Government, and with a famous debate which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In those days the debate was free and pleasant. There was a feeling that justice was being done in a very difficult field and there was no controversy. But the story since then has been of the introduction of complicated measures, each and every one of which was subjected to criticism. Each and every one has made the situation more complex.
Finally, I like the use of fairly commonplace words but the doctrine of refoulement is not new. It has been known for a long time. It is a very simple French word and need not even have troubled our thoughts. It merely means that when a man escapes from his suffering we do not shove him back on the fire. We do not send him back to the place from which he has won his freedom. In the main, I find myself in complete agreement with what has been said about the circumstances of this expulsion. No thought whatsoever seems to have been given to this unfortunate man.
9 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, on this occasion I rise with some passion and some anxiety. When Ribbentrop and Molotov concluded their pact and handed over Lithuania to Stalin they introduced their régime. One of their first tasks was to remove any potential opposition or leadership to the dictatorship. I well remember the senior NKVD man who was sent in to organise the deportation of 300,000 people. He was going to operate through the existing bureaucracy. When one of the officials asked him how he would go about arresting and deporting to the Gulag a man who was on their list, he said, "Give me a name and I shall find something to pin on him". So much for the security and justice which a citizen behind the Iron
1540
Curtain has. We have given them a name. We have also given them a body.
However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this country has not just sent back Mr. Stancu Papusoiu. This country has sent back a message to thousands and thousands, perhaps millions, of people behind the Iron Curtain about the hopelessness of their case. This is perhaps the most tragic wrong. It is not only a wrong against them: it could eventually be a wrong against us. If any one of Mr. Andropov's functionaries had succeeded in contriving the situation of having a man sent here and the British authorities then sending him back, he would have deserved the Medal of Lenin for services to the KGB. I am very sorry for the officials in the Home Office. I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Elton, from any responsibility. But I am very sorry for those people who, by right, though not in honour, could share that medal for services to the KGB.
If one thinks ahead to the time of our children, there are three possibilities. The first is that, through subversion, the Soviet dictatorship will sweep over Europe without a shot being fired. The other possibility is that there will be a fight to the finish. The third possibility, for which we hope, is that the flame of freedom will ignite from within their empire and make a fight unnecessary. We have seen what has happened in Poland. That is where our hope is.
I should like to ask your Lordships to think for a moment about how this story concerning Mr. Stancu Papusoiu will be received in Poland. The BBC has been proud of the fact that it has a bigger audience in the Soviet Union than it has even in this country. The Soviet people and everybody behind the Iron Curtain have learned to listen with interest to the BBC and to read both the lines and between the lines. What is the message that they will read in this story? It is the biggest Easter gift we could have sent to the propaganda machine behind the Iron Curtain.
I have heard it suggested that economic improvement was the motive behind Mr. Stancu Papusoiu's escape. I was in a dentist's surgery in Stalin's days when a person refused to accept an anaesthetic because he was afraid of what he might say under that anaesthetic. We have seen many people give up high positions in the Soviet Union—well-paid jobs—in order to breathe fresh air. It is absolutely deplorable that this suggestion could have been made. It is also absolutely naïve.
I would suggest, first, that it was a mistake, if not a crime to ourselves and to any hopes for freedom here. Secondly, I would suggest to the noble Lord the Minister that in the weeks to come we should monitor accurately the manner in which this Stancu Papusoiu event has been beamed to the Soviet people and to the people behind the Iron Curtain, and what prominence have they given to it. Poland should be included in that. Then, perhaps, we shall realise what terrible damage has been done.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in official form I am required to answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the Question which my noble friend has placed upon the Order Paper. But none of your Lordships is in any

1541
doubt that what I am answering is not a Question but a charge—and a serious one at that. There were a number of matters subsidiary to it, but the principal charge is that the Government have knowingly and callously returned to his country and to certain retribution a political dissident who had fled to England in search of freedom. I shall pursue that principal charge and will endeavour to take up the subsidiary ones to the extent that the time which your Lordships will allow me permits.
I can best start my reply by giving a chronological account of the relevant events from the moment when Mr. Papusoiu first presented himself to our authorities until the moment when he finally left this country.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to ask him one question?
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords, this one, but no other.
Lord Bethell: Before he starts, could my noble friend accept that no-one in this debate has suggested that Mr. Papusoiu was a political dissident?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I may have chosen the term wrongly, but I understood that it was political motivation which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, attributed to this man which distinguished him from an economic migrant.
Lord Bethell: My noble friend used the word "dissident".
Lord Elton: I have used the term "dissident", my Lords, and if it is in any way inaccurate I withdraw it, because we all know what I mean; I mean a man who has to leave his country for political reasons and cannot go back for political reasons. If the noble Lord will accept that, I hope he will accept that he has had his ration of interruptions, because I have such a long tally of questions to answer.
As I say, I think I can best start my reply by giving a chronological account of the relevant events from the moment when Mr. Papusoiu first presented himself to our authorities until the moment when he left this country. Mr. Papusoiu is believed to have arrived in the United Kingdom as an illegal entrant concealed in a lorry on or about 16th April 1982. On 19th April he reported to Limehouse police station, where he was given an initial examination and where he asked for asylum. He was without any travel or identification documents, and without any visible means of supporting himself.
He received his first substantive interview at Limehouse police station on 21st April 1982. This was carried out through an interpreter who, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was both born and educated in Romania. At that interview he claimed that he had twice previously attempted to leave Romania illegally. He said that on the first occasion he had been given, in either 1969 or 1970, a sentence of five months' imprisonment but that the sentence had been suspended. He further said that on his second conviction he had been sentenced to 12 months' immediate imprisonment, but that after serving only
1542
two months he had been released under a general amnesty. In the account of himself he presented at this interview, with fully effective interpretation, he claimed, therefore, a total of two months' imprisonment. Following this interview Mr. Papusoiu was transferred to Ashford Remand Centre.
At this point the case of Mr. Papusoiu becomes involved with that of another Romanian, a Mr. Milea, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. Mr. Milea arrived illegally in the United Kingdom at the same time as Mr. Papusoiu, and he was also detained at Ashford Remand Centre. Because there were many similarities in the circumstances surrounding the arrival of the two in the United Kingdom the two cases were considered together. A number of representations were made on Mr. Milea's behalf which delayed further action on both cases. Both cases were submitted to the Minister of State in July. Further representations were then received, and it was decided that both detainees should be interviewed again to give them every opportunity to explain their circumstances in detail.
Mr. Papusoiu was given a second interview on 6th September. The same interpreter, born and educated in Mr. Papusoiu's own country, was again present. But the story he then heard was strikingly different. On this occasion Mr. Papusoiu recalled not two previous attempts to leave Romania, but five. He also claimed that he had served not just two months in prison but nine years and two months. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hale, will not think that I am attempting to sneer—I think was the term he used—at Mr. Papusoiu, but it is necessary to put before your Lordships all the considerations that were before my honourable friend and the department throughout this case.
Lord Hale: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why these facts, which are of great materiality, were never passed back to us? This is September the noble Lord is talking about. The letters to which I referred passed in November, and no such suggestion was then made.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I must try not to give way too often. I am giving an account of the events that took place in chronological order, as I undertook at the beginning. As to which pieces of it should be revealed to whom and at what stage when the matter is under consideration, that is perhaps for later reflection.
Mr. Papusoiu could give no explanation of why he had not previously mentioned either the three extra attempts or the three sentences, each of three years' duration, and separately served. The rather startling discrepancy between the accounts which he gave of his past on these two occasions did not exactly help his credibility. I shall be concerned with his credibility again later. But it has little bearing on another matter elicited in these interviews.
In these interviews officials, of course, had a prime interest in the reasons Mr. Papusoiu gave for wishing to settle outside Romania. The only substantive reasons which they could elicit were that he disliked the long working hours and that he also disliked the frequent shortages of food. Whatever the credibility of the applicant, he has to have a reason for applying for asylum which would warrant our granting it to him.

1543
Perhaps I ought to enlarge on that point. It is surely accepted that one cannot describe everyone who is discontented with economic conditions in his home country automatically as a refugee. It may not always feel like it at the end of a long recession, but our standard of living in this country is the envy of a large part of the population of the world. It is against that background that it is agreed—and is the clear policy of the Government—that we must have a policy of firm and fair immigration control. This can admit to this country, and offer to protect in it, only people satisfying criteria specifically laid down in immigration rules. To put it at its bluntest, if we waived our immigration rules for everyone who felt that he would be better off here than he would at home we would very rapidly find ourselves hosts to enormous numbers of people from all over the globe. That would be folly, and nobody is suggesting it. What would be equally impracticable—and highly invidious as well—would be to indulge in that sort of hospitality but to reserve it to people who lived in only one part of the world. Whether that part was in Asia or Africa or Europe, it would be invidious to accord to its citizens the right to become refugees for purely economic reasons and to deny that right to everyone else.
Indeed, the United Nations Convention on Refugees, implemented for this country in our Immigration Rules, makes it quite clear, as my noble friend in asking his Question has endorsed, that the criterion for the status of refugees is a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group or holding particular political opinions. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees himself distinguishes emphatically between refugees and economic migrants. To abandon that distinction would undermine the convention and reduce our ability to accept genuine refugees.
Baroness Birk: My Lords—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have given way three times already.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that someone who has spent nine out of 10 years in prison in Romania has motives that are entirely for economic improvement? It just does not make sense to us or to anyone else.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness will appreciate the relevance of what I am to say a little later on that point. What I am doing now is establishing what I would have thought are the eminently reasonable grounds on which our immigrations are by general accord based. A person who comes here for asylum as a refugee must have reasons—other than economic reasons—that are valid.
Lord Bethell: My Lords— —
Lord Elton: I have given way enough, my Lords.
Lord Bethell: My Lords— —
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord Elton: My Lords, it has been suggested that there were political motives in this case. I have looked at the papers we have received. I have noted that, at his interviews, Mr. Papusoiu was given ample opportunity to alter or elaborate his claim to asylum; and I have to say that at no time was anything written or said that gave him any sufficient claim to refugee status.
It was as an illegal entrant that Mr. Papusoiu had been detained in Ashford Remand Centre. In August 1982 the London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who had received details of the case, undertook inquiries in France—through which Mr. Papusoiu had claimed to have travelled—to see if they would have him back. In early November the Home Office was informed that they would not. The French authorities did, however, indicate that they were prepared to consider accepting Mr. Milea to continue an application for asylum he had already made in that country.
It was also in November, on the 20th to be precise, that Mr. Papusoiu began to refuse to take food. His hunger strike, to protest at his detention and the refusal of asylum, lasted until four and a half days later. He had began to eat again by tea time on the 25th. I shall refer to this episode again in a moment, because very serious allegations have been made about it. But those allegations were not, it appears, made—nor anything like them—on the very next day, 26th November, when Mr. Papusoiu was visited by two members of the British-Romanian Society, which we had informed about his case.
It was in fact the Refugee Counsellor of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service who, on 1st December, asked whether Mr. Papusoiu might be granted temporary admission on her undertaking to accept responsibility for him. My right honourable friend always regrets the need for lengthy periods of detention and usually some solution is available fairly soon, but this was the first offer by anyone to take responsibility for him and the first opportunity for his release. We were glad to accept it and accordingly he was released on 4th December 1982.
Both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the British-Romanian Association continued efforts which they had started before his release to find an alternative destination for Mr. Papusoiu. In the meantime Mr. Milea had embarked voluntarily for France before any application had been made for him to do so. Mr. Papusoiu's case was considered by Home Office Ministers on a number of occasions but they remained convinced that he did not qualify as a refugee and that he should be removed. On 10th February 1983 my honourable friend, the Minister of State, decided that arrangements for that removal should be resumed. They had been suspended following representations made to him by, among others, the honourable Member for Essex South-East and the noble Lord, Lord Hale.
Mr. Papusoiu was directed to report to an immigration officer on 21st February 1983 and

1545
advised to bring with him an interpreter and, if he wished, his representative. Mr. Papusoiu reported alone and was, therefore, required to return to the immigration officer on 14th March when arrangements were made for the presence of the same interpreter who had dealt with this case from the start. He was then served with a formal notice that arrangements had been made for his removal to Bucharest by air on 19th March. Mr. Papusoiu said that he would not leave voluntarily and threatened suicide. That placed upon us a very delicate responsibility. It was, therefore, decided to take him into custody both to guard against the possibility of his disappearance and for the sake of his own safety. It was also decided to accelerate his departure in order to reduce the period of his detention.
The question of handcuffing has been raised at this point. I have to say that the responsibility for ensuring that those in their custody do not escape is that of the police and they have to see that they do not endanger the safety of others or themselves. As for the particular circumstances in Mr. Papusoiu's case, I should make it clear that an immigration officer has no power to order that a person should be handcuffed. The decision to handcuff Mr. Papusoiu was made by the police officers to whose custody the immigration officer handed him. Whether police should use handcuffs in a particular case is a matter of operational judgment which has to be taken by the responsible officers on the spot. I recognise of course that many people find handcuffing distasteful. That is why Home Office guidance to the police advises that handcuffing should not be resorted to unless there are very good reasons. I recognise the concern not only of the noble Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge but of the House about the use of handcuffs on this occasion and I shall ensure that it is drawn to the Commissioner's attention.
On 16th March, Mr. Papusoiu was taken from Ashford to Harmondsworth detention accommodation. From here he was escorted by two members of Securicor staff to Heathrow. On the journey to Heathrow physical restraint of handcuffs were neither necessary nor used. He was accompanied to the aircraft steps which he mounted alone and without protest. That is the end of the chronology, but other serious matters have been raised.
The most serious allegations were those relating to Mr. Papusoiu's hunger strike. They were made by Mr. Papusoiu himself, during his release on bail when he was medically examined on 18th December. They were that he had been forcibly fed and that he had been physically assaulted by 10 prison officers. He claimed that during this assault he was repeatedly struck in the lower back and had his arms and legs trodden on. You will recall, my Lords, that Mr. Papusoiu was visited by two members of the British-Romanian Society on 26th November. The allegation recorded in the medical report, a copy of which I have seen, was that this serious assault by 10 people took place on 25th November, the day before this visit. I find it as surprising that Mr. Papusoiu appears to have made no mention of these events on that occasion as that his visitors seem to have noticed
1546
nothing in his appearance or demeanour to suggest he had been so recently and so grossly mistreated.
In that context I cannot help recalling the unexplained contrast between the first and the second account which Mr. Papusoiu gave of his earlier history. That recollection is not offset by the medical report of 17th December. The doctor who wrote the report said that no recent injuries were present on his right arm. He also conducted a careful investigation of Mr. Papusoiu's lower back. He found no signs of tenderness there and examination under ultra violet light revealed no signs of resolving bruises in any part of it. He also examined both his legs and found no sign of recent injuries there either. He did, however, find evidence of two healing bruises on the left arm but was unable to give any opinion as to how these occurred.
I mentioned a moment ago, my Lords, my doubts as to the credibility of Mr. Papusoiu. The independent medical report obtained by Mr. Papusoiu's own legal adviser was the vehicle by which the charges of assault were made known to the Home Office and arose from claims made by Mr. Papusoiu to the medical examiner. It is therefore fair to note that this report records that in giving an account of his past experience Mr. Papusoiu arrives at a third recollection of his imprisonment in Romania which he now puts neither at two months, as in his first statement, nor at nine years, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, fixed as the true total and which he gave in his second statement, but at "some 5 to 6 years". Unlike my noble friend—and I think that I am now quoting what he said not in the debate, but in The Times newspaper this morning—I do not find this degree of inconsistency in a matter of such obvious central importance to the man as in any way lending credibility to the picture of himself that he was seeking to draw.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that it is not the practice in Her Majesty's Prison Service to force-feed prisoners who have rationally decided to stop eating. Mr. Papusoiu stopped eating for a trivial length of time, and careful inquiry confirms that he was not force-fed. I would not have expected it; and there would have been considerable repercussions had he been force-fed. The same results attended our inquiry about the allegations of assault. They are, I believe, as ill-founded as the allegations in the press, followed wholesale by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that Mr. Papusoiu was frogmarched, protesting, and in handcuffs, on to the plane that took him back to his native country. He was escorted to the aircraft by agents of Securicor, who do not have handcuffs, and who have no right to use force to restrain those whom they are escorting. Mr. Papusoiu mounted the steps of the aircraft unaccompanied and without protest. He was received by the cabin staff of the Romanian aircraft, who were told, in accordance with normal practice, that he had been refused entry to the United Kingdom.
I now come to the other specific questions that have been raised. In today's Times my noble friend suggested—and he repeated it this evening—that the anti-emigration laws in Romania are in breach of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Article 12 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. He argues from that that if Mr. Papusoiu is subsequently punished for having

1547
broken those laws, he will be subject to political persecution. But if we follow that line of reasoning, it is to arrive at a reductio ad absurdum, for it would inevitably give a claim to asylum in this country to the entire population of every country—and there are many—in which such laws existed. That is why the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures for Refugee Recognition lays down that considerations of punishment for illegal immigration, or overstaying abroad, are relevant only if a person qualifies on other grounds as a refugee. Those other grounds are the grounds for which, all along, we have been looking, in vain.
The noble Lord asked how many citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania have been deported from this country since 1950. The systematic compilation of deportation statistics began only in 1973 with the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1971. Before that the figures were kept on a different basis, and therefore the information requested by the noble Lord is not available. However, I can say that in the 10 years to February of this year, 25 Poles and two Hungarians were deported, but their names are not separately listed, and therefore without examining several thousand case files, it is not possible to say whether any of these nationals were deported to a country other than their own. No Czechs, Russians, or Romanians were deported during that period. In addition to those deported, seven Polish citizens who had been recommended by the courts for deportation left the United Kingdom under supervision, but in those cases no deportation order was signed by the Secretary of State. A table showing the figures in question for each year since 1973 will be placed in the Library of the House.
There are one or two matters which I think your Lordships would not wish me to overlook, and I shall refer to them very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who I must say is a prolific, determined, and charitable inquirer into these cases, asked a number of statistical questions, of which he was kind enough to give me notice. I fear that the figures that he wants are not available. He also asked about the presentation of asylum cases to an independent authority; he suggested the Appeals Adjudicator and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' representative. The existing procedures are that where a right of appeal exists, a nominated adjudicator deals with cases involving asylum, and the UNHCR representative has the right of appearance as an independent party. Where no appeal rights exist or where appeal rights have been exhausted there is the possibility of review by Home Office Ministers that may be considered of greater scope than a formal appeal. There is also the possibility of recourse to judicial review.
The present procedures conform with the recommendations of the UNHCR executive committee. I am not sure that the noble Lord accepts that, but that is our view. Successive Home Secretaries have considered proposals similar to those put forward by the noble Lord but have concluded that additional procedures would not be justified. I take it from the temper of what your Lordships have said that you would wish me to draw the attention of my right
1548
honourable friend to your Lordships' concern that this should be looked at with the greatest of care.
There were interesting diplomatic exchanges. I can tell your Lordships that the British ambassador in Bucharest, acting on instructions, called on the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs after Mr. Papusoiu's removal from the United Kingdom to inform then that Mr. Papusoiu was removed from the United Kingdom for a breach of the immigration laws and not for any political reason. The Romanian authorities took note of those representations. My noble friend Lord Saint Oswald was concerned about the Poles. I can tell him that since martial law was imposed in Poland no Pole has been returned to Poland against his or her will. My right honourable friend announced today—I do not know whether my noble friend was aware of this—that this exceptional treatment should be extended to the 31 Poles who stayed behind when the cruise liner "Stefan Batory" sailed from this country recently. That will give some reassurance to the Poles, who, the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, feels, will be deeply anxious following the developments.
I apologise to your Lordships for the length of time that I am taking. There are so many questions that I shall need, I think, another four minutes, if your Lordships will bear with me. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raised the question of access to Mr. Papusoiu. There is no formal arrangement whereby those seeking asylum are notified to a particular agency such as the UKIAS or the UNHCR. In those cases where a favourable decision is reached and the applicant needs assistance with accommodation or welfare, he is normally put in touch with the British Refugee Council. In cases where there is doubt on the facts adduced or the interpretation of refugee provisions, the refugee unit will consult the local representative of the United Nations High Commissioner. There are, in fact, very few cases that have not already been adopted by an agency before reference is made to the Home Office refugee unit, and even fewer, where detention is unusually involved, wherein the person does not, of his own motion or on advice from fellow detainees, find himself in touch with those who might espouse his cause. I shall, however, recommend to my right honourable friend the suggestion that the procedure for notification should be formalised.
The noble Lord also asked about the 26 applications made by Romanians in 1982. Of the 26 applications 12 were granted, one was withdrawn, 10 were refused and three were outstanding at the end of the year.
No party, and few, if any, individuals, believe that this country could survive with totally unrestricted immigration. Some rules are essential. The rules that we have are rules made by Parliament. They were not casually arrived at; they were made after prolonged, detailed and arduous debate. Any set of such rules will always have hard cases, and even sad cases, at the margin. Such cases take up a great deal of the time of the officials and Ministers of the Home Office. This case has also taken up a great deal of time of officials and Ministers.
This country offers refuge to genuine political refugees. It offers refuge to those fleeing the Eastern bloc just as much as to those from elsewhere. My noble

1549
friend suggests that there has been a change of policy in this area. My right honourable friend has been in office throughout the whole period over which this change is alleged to have taken place. He entirely refutes any suggestion that there has been any change in the policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to changes in the statistics. There have been changes in statistics, but they are dependent on changes both in the flow of applicants and in the sort of people of which that flow is constituted. To refer in print, as my noble friend has done, to a new Yalta Agreement is a damaging and unwarrantable assertion that my right honourable friend deeply resents.
I accept that this is a case which has aroused strong feelings and raised difficult and sensitive issues. The United Kingdom has an honourable and generous record as far as refugees—that is, "refugees'", as defined in the international convention—are concerned. But Parliament has also approved a strict immigration control which inevitably, and in my view rightly, has to disappoint many people who merely wish to better themselves by settling in the United Kingdom.
The Home Office and my honourable friend have the exceedingly difficult task of doing the job that Parliament and noble Lords themselves want them to do in distinguishing cases. We apply the test of refugee status on the individual merits of the case. I think that it is fair and right to other potential immigrants that we should so do. The experience of other countries shows that blurring the test can and does lead to considerable abuse. To regard every person who comes here from an East European country as a political refugee would be a serious matter which would affect all our immigration policy. The fact remains that this case was given the fullest consideration on a number of occasions; but my right honourable friend is satisfied that the man had not adduced a sustainable claim to refugee status or asylum and that the circumstances of the case did not justify the exceptional grant of leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
That, my Lords, is my answer to the charge made by my noble friend and it renders his suggestion that my honourable friend should resign, strangely and, I think, ungraciously inappropriate.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he please finally tell us what has happened to Mr. Papusoiu's belongings?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sorry that I overlooked the last paragraph of the noble Lord's article in today's issue of The Times, which was sufficient notice—
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I mentioned it in my speech.
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords. I was going to say "which was sufficient notice of the question which he raised in his speech". My honourable friend will inquire into the matter of Mr. Papusoiu's belongings and their return.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, thank you.

Tor Bay Harbour (Torquay Marina &c.) Bill
Bill brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Bill
Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Staffordshire Bill [H.L.]
Bill reported from the Select Committee with an amendment and recommitted to the Select Committee on Unopposed Provisions.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before ten o'clock.

  PRISONERS CONVICTED OF MURDER
  PRISONERS CONVICTED OF MURDER
  PRISONERS' EXTRA LETTERS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
  PRISONERS' EXTRA LETTERS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
  PIT CLOSURES 1950–82
  PIT CLOSURES 1950–82
  SSSIs: RENOTIFICATION UNDER THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981
  SSSIs: RENOTIFICATION UNDER THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981
  SOUTH GEORGIA: SCRAP METAL REMOVAL CONTRACT
  SOUTH GEORGIA: SCRAP METAL REMOVAL CONTRACT
  STATE STUDENTSHIPS
  STATE STUDENTSHIPS
  SOMERSET LEVELS: CONSULTATIONS ON CONSERVATION
  SOMERSET LEVELS: CONSULTATIONS ON CONSERVATION
  SLAUGHTERHOUSES: FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL REPORT
  SLAUGHTERHOUSES: FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL REPORT
  POULTRY SLAUGHTER: GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPORT
  POULTRY SLAUGHTER: GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPORT