Sitting of 30 March 1983

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

    Employment
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase in employment he expects in Scotland in the fiscal year 1983–84 as a result of the Budget.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the consequences on job and industrial investment prospects in Scotland of the recent Budget proposals.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the likely effects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget proposals on the prospects for future growth in the Scottish economy.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Given the extent to which the Budget proposals will benefit industry, directly and indirectly, they will improve the prospects for economic growth, industrial investment and jobs in Scotland.
    Mr. Johnston: Is it not plain that that is not the case and that the Government's policies offer no opportunity to reduce unemployment? Will the Secretary of State be direct with us instead of leaving the matter to his surrogate undertakers, MacGregor and Atkinson, and say categorically whether Ravenscraig is to continue as a fully integrated steel plant?
    Mr. Younger: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the reduction in the national insurance surcharge, the extra help for small businesses, the construction industry and the oil industry and, what is more, a further reduction in the bank rate, are bound to be helpful for jobs in Scotland.
    With regard to Ravenscraig, the Government made their position crystal clear in a statement on 20 December, and any major departure from the instructions that were given to the British Steel Corporation will have to be referred back to the Government.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Secretary of State admit that there will be a further dramatic increase in unemployment
    326
    in Scotland in the rest of the current financial year and that that will not allay anxiety about the future of the steel, coal and railway industries? Moreover, does he recognise that the number of bankruptcies of small firms has reached an all-time record since the Government took office?
    Mr. Younger: There will be no dramatic increase in unemployment during the current financial year, because it finishes in about five days' time. With regard to the more serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, no one in any Western European country can forecast in present circumstances that there will not be an increase in unemployment of some type, even in the months ahead. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Budget and all the other measures that the Government have taken have made massive efforts to ease the difficulties of unemployment.
    The hon. Gentleman must recognise that none of the publicly owned industries that he mentioned would have a chance of existing today if it were not for the vast sums of money that the Government have found to help them through the recession.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State come clean about young people being unemployed? What hope can he give that important sector of the population who, come a year's time, will find that jobs are not available for them, even if they have undertaken strenuous educational and training activity? They want real, purposeful jobs, riot the phony economic prospectus that the Government are offering.
    Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about unemployment among all people, and especially among young people. However, he cannot shrug of his responsibility, as he supported a Government who did a great deal to destroy the companies on whose markets we depend for our jobs and have found recently that competition from overseas has taken many of their markets. Surely the hon. Gentleman is able to tell young people that not only are there better training facilities for them than there have ever been, but that there are tremendous opportunities in high technology industries in his own area, for example, in which they can take jobs from now on.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best prospects for secure and long-term employment in Scotland lie not with the high-spending proposals of the Labour party, but in creating the right climate that will attract new and lasting industries to Scotland, and that that is what the Budget has done?
    Mr. Younger: I agree that even a cursory reading of the document that the Labour party produced yesterday makes it quite clear that the increase in taxation and interest rates that its vast spending programme would require would probably put a large number of Scottish companies out of business because of the burden on them.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: s the Secretary of State telling us that the Budget provisions for an increase in unemployment of about 300,000 will not affect Scotland and that we shall not suffer an increase in unemployment, or is he saying cautiously that there will be an increase in unemployment?
    Mr. Younger: I did not say that cautiously. I said it plainly a few moments ago. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise, because his knowledge of economics is

    327
    much better than that of many hon. Members, that the way to deal with unemployment is to ensure that our businesses can recapture the markets that they lost while under the control of the Government of which he, alas, was a member.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that he made a statement earlier this week, with which we all agree, that the MacGregor plan for Ravenscraig, with its loss of 2,000 jobs,
    "is an extraordinarily unattractive proposition"?
    Does he stand by that? If so, will he assure the House that he will not agree to or acquiesce in such a plan? If the Government accept such a plan, is he aware that he will not have an ounce of credibility left and he should resign?
    Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman calls for my resignation about three times a week. I am happy for him to continue to do that for the next five years. I have made it clear that any major departure from the instructions given by the Government to the British Steel Corporation on 20 December must come back to the Government. No such proposal has been put to me by Mr. MacGregor or by anyone else, and during my discussions about steel during the past week no one has suggested to me that I should refuse to consider any plan produced for the future.
    Mr. Milan: We know what is in the MacGregor plan. Does the Secretary of State stand by his statement that the plan
    "is an extraordinarily unattractive proposition"?
    Mr. Younger: Those words were put into my mouth. If the right hon. Gentleman knows the MacGregor plan details, he is one up on Mr. MacGregor, who does not know either. It was made clear to me by Mr. MacGregor that he has no specific plan arranged with anyone on the other side of the Atlantic. If and when he has, both the right hon. Gentleman and I must consider it.
    Sir Hector Monro: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider the "no hope" document published by the Socialists yesterday, and has he considered the likely rise in unemployment should that document be implemented, because of increasing taxation, interest rates and inflation?
    Mr. Younger: I have made an initial study of that document, which is amazing in its ignorance of the basic requirements for the success of the Scottish economy. I agree with my hon. Friend's examples, but a much greater one is that the Labour party's commitment to withdraw from Europe would put thousands of Scottish jobs in mortal peril of being destroyed for ever.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest number of unemployed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): On 10 February 1983, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood provisionally at 316,900 persons, an unemployment rate of 14·6 per cent. The rate of increase in unemployment has slowed down during the past year, which shows, with other evidence, that our economic strategy is having effect. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech announced further help for the unemployed as well as various measures to assist industrial growth.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that while he has been in office 192,000 more people have joined the unemployment queue in Scotland, representing for every miserable day of his existence, including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, 260 people with no hope of work? For how long will he preside over the shamful destruction of the future of Scottish people, and when will he adopt an alternative policy of hope and expansion?
    Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I have said several times that we deplore the high rate of unemployment in Scotland, but, unlike those of the Labour party, our policies are aimed at reducing unemployment. The Labour party policy document published yesterday would increase unemployment in Scotland by several hundred thousand, because of the withdrawal from Europe and further nationalisation.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the Minister agree that as the consumption of whisky is falling and unemployment in distilling is increasing, this is an especially lunatic moment to increase whisky duty?
    Mr. Fletcher: The increase in duty is well below the level of inflation during the past two years. The whisky industry has not been treated badly in this respect, and more recently it has benefited by about £100 million through measures agreed by the Chancellor.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Is it not true that since the end of the second world war every time a Labour Administration held office unemployment was higher when they left office than when they entered? Does my hon. Friend see any reason why that should change in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct. The policy document published yesterday shows that Labour has learnt nothing from its mistakes.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister agree that the only word that can apply to the impact of the Government's economic policies during the past four years is "disaster"? If he is criticising the Labour party for planning to spend many billions of pounds that it does not have and must borrow from abroad, would it not be appropriate for him to press the Treasury to give back the £7 billion or £8 billion of oil revenues that Scotland needs and deserves to have attributed to it?
    Mr. Fletcher: Scotland benefits a great deal from the nation's oil revenue.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister aware that unemployment in Lanarkshire is now almost one in four of the adult population, and that leaflets are circulating in my constituency claiming that the saving of Ravenscraig was a triumph for Lanarkshire, Scotland and the Conservatives? Will he now answer my right hon. Friend's question? If the MacGregor plan comes before Ministers and it suggests the destruction of the strip mill at Gartcosh as part of a deal with the Americans, will the Secretary of State reject that plan, or will he resign?
    Mr. Fletcher: As my right hon. Friend said, if a proposal comes before the Government it will be considered carefully, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) said he would do. He believes that no Government could refuse to consider any proposal to increase the performance of the British steel

    329
    industry. However, Ministers must decide the future of Ravenscraig, along the lines of the MacGregor plan that is currently being discussed in the newspapers.

    Diabetes (Treatment)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed that treatment for all types of diabetes will be provided in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The treatment of diabetes, in all its usual forms, is provided in Scotland at teaching and district general hospitals and, where appropriate, by family doctors.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that my question refers to a 23 year-old constituent who suffers from a form of diabetes that is, as far as we know, the only such case in Scotland? If my constituent does not receive this treatment, which has already been tried unsuccessfully in Scotland, in Vienna, the cost to the health board will be thousands of pounds, because she will require regular hospital treatment costing £600 a week? Will the Minister reconsider this case and provide the money necessary to enable my constituent to live a normal life?
    Mr. MacKay: This patient suffers from an extremely rare form of brittle diabetes, where only the new method currently being assessed in Vienna has any likelihood of controlling her insulin-sugar balance. National Health Service facilities are limited to the United Kingdom, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 does not enable the NHS to pay for a Scottish patient going abroad for treatment. I understand that funds are being provided by the friends of the hospital, the local rotary club and Fife health board endowment funds to allow the patient to go to Vienna. I hope that the treatment that she receives there will work.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that some distress has been caused to those who suffer from diabetes because of the non-availability of disposable syringes? Will he consider this problem, because many youngsters find it difficult to handle glass syringes and would find disposable syringes much easier?
    Mr. MacKay: I have considered the problem on more than one occasion. For youngsters, disposable needles that are essential on medical grounds can be supplied through a hospital. If they were not, we would not be justified in diverting the necessary expenditure from other Health Service priorities to give disposable needles to every diabetic.

    Fraserburgh and Peterhead (Unemployment)
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to alleviate unemployment in the engineering and fish processing factories in Fraserburgh and Peterhead.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: A wide range of incentives are available for industrial development. These include tax incentives, schemes to back innovation in product development and numerous measures to assist small firms. Moreover, the fish processing industry may be eligible for grant support from the European Community under its FEOGA provisions.
    Mr. McQuarrie: That is a most unsatisfactory reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that 26·1 per cent. of the employable male workers in Fraserburgh are unemployed and that in the fish processing factories shifts are being laid off because there is no work for them? With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, the facilities may be available, but they are not being used. Will he instruct his officials to do something in my constituency so that we can have action rather than words?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is aware that action is being taken in his constituency, and I have to disagree with him about the FEOGA grants, because considerable sums are being invested in fish processing. For example, during 1982–83 applications for grants from FEOGA involved planned expenditure in Scotland of £10·5 million.
    Mr. Myles: Is my hon. Friend aware that, just along the coast from Fraserburgh, in the town of Buckie, a fishing boat building yard, after being closed for two years, has reopened with orders for new vessels, and also that two fish processors in that town, Cox Fish and Moray Fish, are each taking on 50 or 60 extra employees?
    Mr. Fletcher: It would seem that my hon. Friend's constituents are faster on the draw than the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie).
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that just along the coast, in the other direction from Buckie, the Government's settlement of the common fisheries policy has done nothing to help fishermen and that throughout the whole of the north east of Scotland there is great dismay, shared by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), over the disgraceful way in which the Government have treated the economy of the Grampian region?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am rather confused about the question. However, the fishermen fully supported the agreement reached with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. O'Neillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to meet the principals of colleges of education in Scotland to discuss the future of teacher training in Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for such a meeting. My Department is, however, in constant touch with the principals about all aspects of teacher training.
    Mr. O'Neill: What assurances can the Minister give to the principals of Craigie, Dunfermline and Dundee colleges of education that they will not be closed, as each of the colleges recorded costs per student in 1981–82 that were higher than those per student at Hamilton college and Callendar park college, both of which had to be closed for economic reasons?
    Mr. Fletcher: The reason for the closure of the colleges was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the unit

    331
    cost, but that there was, as the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, lessening demand for school teachers. We have no proposals to close the colleges to which he referred.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister take into account, when looking at the future of the colleges for further education, the working party that he has set up on primary pre-service training? Will he tell the House that he will appoint a member from the Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland to the committee, as it represents all the lecturers and principals in colleges of education? As they are the people who have to teach these courses, do they not have a right to say how the courses should be set up?
    Mr. Fletcher: We believe that the colleges are properly represented on the committee.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In view of my hon. Friend's reply that there are no proposals to close colleges of education, will he confirm that no further colleges of education will be closed?
    Mr. Fletcher: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's words. I said that we had no proposals at present for any colleges closures, but we cannot tell what the position might be in five or 10 years' time.
    Mr. Michael Martin: Will the Minister include in the colleges of education, colleges of engineering, and ensure that every support is given to them to ensure that apprenticeships are given and kept up to date with the changes in industry and technology?
    Mr. Fletcher: Much change is taking place in the engineering industry and in apprenticeship training, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. These matters are being revised.

    Ayrshire and Arran Health Board (New Laundry)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to start the construction of a new laundry in north Ayrshire for the Ayrshire and Arran health board; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John MacKay: The board is considering a number of alternative methods of providing laundry facilities in north Ayrshire. I hope to receive its proposals shortly.
    Mr. Lambie: Why has the offer from Irvine development corporation to rent or sell one of its many empty factories to be completed as a laundry not been accepted by the Ayrshire and Arran health board? Is it because the Minister's right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has an interest in Ayrshire and wishes one of his political industrial friends in north Ayrshire to provide laundry services to the hospitals of North Ayrshire as a first step in the privatisation of health services in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area?
    Mr. MacKay: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question was unworthy of him and was an unwarranted slur on my right hon. Friend. I deplore the time that the health board has taken over this matter. It has a number of options to look at and I hope—I have made my view clear to the board chairman—that its proposals will come to me soon.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister come clean and admit that he and his right hon. Friend are pushing the Ayrshire and Arran health board into privatisation, not just of the
    332
    laundry service, but of the meal and cleaning services? Are not these three services in hospitals far too important to leave to private enterprise when so many of the companies which might carry them out are going bust because of the Government's economic policy?
    Mr. MacKay: The health board is considering various options, including the building of a special laundry and the option mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), and contracting out laundry work. It must be obvious to any sensible person that if contracting out is the most economic way to carry out the services it is for the benefit of the patients and the taxpayers that that is done so that as much of Health Service resources as possible are directed to patient care, or, in the words of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to help with much needed facilities for psychogeriatric and geriatric care in south Ayrshire. I should have thought that that was the sensible way, unlike the dogmatic approach of the Labour party.
    Mr. Corrie: If a private company offers a laundry service, will my hon. Friend support that company in doing the work for the health board?
    Mr. Mackay: I assure my hon. Friend, and I have made it clear, that sound common sense is needed in the use of public money. I should expect the health board to look at all the options available, and if contracting out is the most economic way to deliver the service, common sense would tell us all that that is how it should be done.

    Glasgow (Geriatric Beds)
    Mrs. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many geriatric beds there are in Glasgow.
    Mr. John MacKay: In March 1981 there were 2,262 hospital beds for geriatric patients in the Greater Glasgow health board area. In addition, 2,566 beds for the elderly were provided in residential accommodation by local authorities and voluntary bodies.
    Mrs. McElhone: What assurances can the Minister give me that the geriatric hospital that has been shelved for three years in Rutherglen will go ahead with the 240 proposed new beds? Does the Minister realise that in the south eastern district of Glasgow there are nearly 230,000 people, 20 per cent. of whom are over 60, but only 350 geriatric beds to serve them?
    Mr. MacKay: The most recent estimates show that Greater Glasgow has slightly more beds than set out in the formula of 40 beds per 1,000 for people aged 75 or over. I agree that there is a problem of both the quality and location of beds in Glasgow. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that my Department has approved schemes at both Rutherglen and Gartloch hospitals for 120 beds at each, which will lead to an improvement in geriatric and psychogeriatric provision in the area.
    Mr. Craigen: In assessing provision for the elderly in the Glasgow area, how closely does the Minister liaise with his housing colleague in the Scottish Office on the provision of sheltered accommodation?
    Mr. MacKay: Sheltered accommodation is an important part of the whole spectrum of care for the elderly. The Government have given money to the housing

    333
    associations, which has allowed them to build sheltered housing at a faster rate than ever before. I very much hope that that progress will continue, because sheltered housing is a splendid way of keeping the elderly active and in the community.
    Mr. Dewar: Will there not be a frightening shortfall of provision, not just in the hospital service, but in the geriatric service in the community? Is the Minister not upset and distressed by the fact that there have been so few jointly financed projects between local government and the health boards in Scotland? Would it not be better to do something about that scheme—thus getting away from the disadvantages met by local authorities in relation to the financial attractions of such a scheme, as against their counterparts in England—than to threap on about the ideological advantages of privatisation in the Health Service, as the hon. Gentleman has been doing for the last three or four minutes?
    Mr. Mackay: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at a meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities I discussed the whole question of the support finance scheme. I am considering ways in which that scheme can be improved. I am pleased to tell the House that in the coming financial year we are allocating £3·6 million to that scheme—a considerable increase over last year and a huge increase compared with the figure under the Labour party.

    Forestry Plantings
    Mr. Corrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreage of forestry has been planted in Scotland by the Forestry Commission and by private forestry groups over the past two years where figures are available.
    Mr. Younger: In the year ended 31 March 1981, 10,481 hectares were planted by the Forestry Commission and 7,074 hectares by private growers. In the year ended 31 March 1982, 10,094 hectares were planted by the commission and 10,743 hectares by private growers. These figures are for new planting only and do not include restocking. Separate records are not held centrally of the planting undertaken by the forestry groups.
    Mr. Corrie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which vindicates Government policy. To make absolutely sure that jobs are kept in this country, and to make use of all the timber grown both now and in the future, will he ensure that any major developments for the processing of timber will be located in Scotland, so that jobs can be developed there to support this vital industry?
    Mr. Younger: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, although the interesting new development at Shotton in north Wales is of considerable benefit to the general timber market and should have beneficial effects on the market in Scotland. It is good to report that Messrs. Caberboard Ltd. is running its timber-using plant near Stirling well and has also reconstructed the firm in Irvine—previously Scotboard—which is now making a useful contribution to the use of timber in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is a future for a pulp industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: There is a great future for a timber-using industry in Scotland. The Government are doing a
    334
    great deal—including the commissioning of the Arthur D. Little study through the SDA—to make sure that Scotland is ready to take full advantage of that.
    Mr. Home Robertson: What area of forestry land has been sold off by the Forestry Commission in Scotland since the Forestry Act 1981 came into force? How much money has consequently been siphoned out of Scottish forestry and into the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Younger: Between the passing of the Act in 1981 and 21 February 1983, approximately 1,034 hectares—775 hectares in Scotland—of land awaiting planting were sold by the commission, and the total amount of land that has so far been sold is about 90,000 hectares—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Let me correct that figure. The total is 9,300 hectares being planted for the current year, with more than 8,000 hectares being planted in Scotland. It is expected that in future the private sector will do considerably more planting than the public sector. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all the money is ploughed back into the forestry industry.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, at about £10 million a day, timber and timber imports have virtually become the United Kingdom's largest import bill? As Scotland can make a major contribution, will he do everything to ensure a far greater planting effort in both the private and public sectors in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is for that reason that the Arthur D. Little study has been put into effect. As a result of that, the Scottish Forest Products Development Group has been established to seek and encourage investment in future forest products in Scotland. That is exactly in line with what my hon. Friend suggested.
    Mr. O'Neill: How much in excess of the undertakings given at the time of the 1981 Act are the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman? Are they not greatly in excess of what we were led to believe would be the maximum level of privatisation of forestry land?
    Mr. Younger: Not at all. The figures are pretty well on target with the undertakings given to the House when the sales programme went ahead. I am confident that that will continué over the rest of the programme.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to privatise or sell off any of the activities currently run or owned by the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: It is the Government's intention that the agency should continue to secure private sector participation in its activities and dispose of assets in accordance with its guidelines.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that private enterprise money introduced into SDA ventures, such as the construction and letting of industrial estates, will not become a Trojan horse, whereby once the estates are fully let they will be sold off to the private enterprise partner at rock-bottom prices?
    Mr. Fletcher: There is no suggestion of anything being sold off at less than market value. The hon. Gentleman

    335
    will be pleased to know that the funds coming to the agency from private disposals help to generate new investment.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main purpose of the SDA should be to promote and assist industry to stand on its own two feet and that it should not be a backdoor method of nationalisation and state monopoly?
    Mr. Fletcher: On the contrary, the agency's functions are to work in partnership with the private sector, as I think my hon. Friend is suggesting, and to secure the maximum amount of private sector participation in its activities.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Minister allow the SDA to take over the Bonnington mills rather than John Smart and company, which has a vested interest in the area and supports the Tory party, having given it £30,000 in 1981 and £40,000 last year?
    Is it not important that public inquiries should be a democratic feature of our country? Why should the SDA not have a right to intervene in such a case, about which the Minister is well aware as it is in his constituency?
    Mr. Fletcher: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a private housing development, in which the SDA does not involve itself.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in the construction industry in Scotland in each of the past four years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The number of people employed in the Scottish construction industry in September of each of the past four years was 163,800 in 1979, 157,200 in 1980, 137,600 in 1981, 127,300 in 1982. These figures are estimates and do not include the self-employed, for whom information is not available.
    Mr. Clarke: In view of those disgraceful figures, may I ask how many unemployed construction workers appeared in the pre-election poster whose caption was "Labour isn't working"?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall endeavour to answer the serious issue which I think underlies the hon. Gentleman's question. Although the industry has been through a difficult period, there are now definite signs of recovery. Housing starts rose by over 20 per cent. in the first nine months of last year compared with the same period in 1981 and new construction orders rose by a similar percentage. Construction output has clearly begun to recover.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be better prospects still for the construction industry if local authorities spent more wisely on current account so that more money was available for capital investment?
    Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is deplorable that Scottish local authorities are forgoing so much capital expenditure on housing in the current financial year because of their expenditure under current headings.
    Mr. McKelvey: On a previous occasion the construction industry mounted a campaign called CABIN,
    336
    in which it expressed great support for the Conservative party and claimed that a Conservative Government would offer the only means by which the construction industry would be saved in Scotland. Has the Minister received any approaches from the industry along those lines and, since mounting the CABIN campaign, has it expressed any regrets that the promises made by the Government have not come to pass?
    Mr. Stewart: No, but I am confident that at the next general election the majority in the construction industry, as in other industries, will vote Conservative.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that it has been his controls over revenue spending which have, in effect, strangled the construction industry's prospects of development through capital spending? As the distinction between revenue and capital is not necessarily very effective in public terms, will he review his policies and allow capital spending to go ahead?
    Mr. Stewart: No. There has been constraint because local authorities have chosen to forgo substantial amounts of capital expenditure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that public expenditure on construction in Scotland this year will be about £1,000 million.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of capital expenditure in the housing construction industry? Will he assure the House that adequate funds will be made available for any requests that are made by local authorities for the removal of dampness from local authority houses, this being a great problem in Scottish housing?
    Mr. Stewart: The Government are keenly aware of dampness and condensation problems and the hardship that they can cause. We very much welcome the interest that has been shown by the Select Committee. The responsibility is primarily with housing authorities, but I can assure my hon. Friend that individual housing allocations for 1983–84, which I expect authorities to receive tomorrow, will take full account of representations on dampness and condensation.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister has talked about local authorities having chosen to forgo certain moneys in their capital programmes. Surely that is an unacceptable euphemism. In fact, local authorities have been viciously penalised and fined for refusing to increase rents to unacceptable and arbitrary levels that have been chosen at the whim of the Secretary of State. At a time of increasing housing need, high unemployment in the construction industry and a tidal wave of bankruptcies, is it not an insult to Scotland that over the past two years £80 million should have been taken from Scottish local authorities, which could have been put to good use in the house building programme?
    Mr. Stewart: I uttered not a euphemism, unacceptable or otherwise, but a statement of fact. The hon. Gentleman should be encouraging his friends in Socialist authorities to put capital expenditure first.

    Confederation of British Industry
    Mr. Ancramasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he plans to meet the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland to discuss the recovery of Scottish industry.
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the Confederation of British Industry to discuss economic prospects in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: I have no plans in the immediate future to meet the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland, though, of course, I do frequently meet confederation representatives both formally and informally to discuss Scottish industrial and economic matters.
    Mr. Ancram: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the latest survey of industrial trends, which shows clearly that Scotland is pulling out of the recession and that the Scottish economy is growing at about three times the rate of the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole? Does he agree that the only two things that can damage Scotland's chances are, first, a continuing and cynical misadvertisement by Labour Members that Scotland is an industrial wasteland and, secondly, the nonsensical and inflationary policies that were published by the Labour party yesterday?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that the CBI has already had time to make some devastating comments about the document that was produced yesterday. I noted that in the CBI's latest survey of industrial trends in Scotland it is stated that the Budget is seen as broadly favourable to industry and that the changes in North sea oil taxation are likely to be greatly beneficial to industry in Scotland generally.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had a stimulating meeting with the chairman of the CBI in Dumfries this week? Will he accept that the chairman was extremely confident that the Budget would do a very great deal for small industries and small businesses and provide much hope for the future?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not surprised that he gained that impression from the chairman of the CBI. Its survey of the latest trends shows an expected increase in output over the next four months, which is the most optimistic survey since June 1979. It expects an improvement in export order books that will be stronger than at any time over the past three years, and a decline in the rate of destocking. This shows that there are better times ahead.
    Mr. Douglas: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Scottish CBI, will he explain the posture that he has taken on the Anderson Strathclyde takeover? Will he explain to it how his views conform with its views that we should keep decision-making centres in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. However, by far the most important thing for us all to do now is ensure that the company has every encouragement to continue prospering and that jobs are safeguarded. I find his concern about the matter somewhat interesting, when he supported a Government who, as a matter of policy, removed from Scotland the headquarters of many firms—Colville, Stewart and Lloyd, Yarrows, Scott-Lithgow and Fairfield, for example—and placed them in London. They were all deliberately moved from Scotland to London by the Labour Government. They have that wrapped round their necks.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman of the CBI the
    338
    possibilities that will arise out of the creation of free ports in Scotland? Does he recognise that there is a case for a free port in the Forth estuary and for more than one free port in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in free ports. As he knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget statement that consideration would be given to the establishment of free ports. I am looking forward to receiving bids from places in Scotland which think they are suitable sites.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the sensitivity of the Anderson Strathclyde issue, may I ask what representations the right hon. Gentleman has made to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the effect that he was not consulted on such a vital Scottish issue?
    Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the debate he will know that my right hon. Friend made it clear that under the statute the decision is taken personally by the Minister for Trade. My hon. and learned Friend did so and he explained it to the House.
    Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman confirming that he was not even consulted about what happened? Does he accept that what happened on Friday was an example of City interests behaving in their most squalid fashion? The right hon. Gentleman, who has agreed that the takeover by Charter Consolidated is against Scotland's industrial interests, should be ashamed of himself for voting for the takeover last week.
    Mr. Younger: As I said to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), the right hon. Gentleman should think carefully before he poses as the great champion of keeping headquarters in Scotland. He has taken more of them away from Scotland than all of us put together. He should be ashamed of that. He knows his legislation well enough to be aware that under the statutes my hon. and learned Friend is obliged to take the decision himself and to take into account the views of the Director General of Fair Trading as well as those of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My hon. and learned Friend clearly declared what he had done and the right lion. Gentleman should be aware of the procedure perfectly well. I am not taking any lectures from him about moving headquarters from Scotland. He has a black record on this score and he had better learn to live with it.

    Information Technology (Schools)
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the introduction of information technology in Scottish schools and colleges.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Good progress is being made in the introduction of computers and other new technology into schools and colleges. The production of good quality software is a priority of the Scottish microelectronic development programme and in-service training is available. I announced in December 1982 the indefinite extension of SML)P and its development into a software house, information centre and research and development facility. Considerable sums have been made available this year for the provision of hardware in schools and colleges and for the development of high quality software.
    Mr. Henderson: How does the position in Scotland compare with that in England? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to compliment those teachers who have enthusiastically grasped the opportunities, and at the same time encourage those who have not yet become as friendly and at ease with microcomputers as so many of their pupils have?
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not know the exact comparison with England, but Scotland certainly got off to a smart start three years ago. I know that teachers are enthusiastic about the developments, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that in many cases pupils are ahead of them.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that there is not much point in having information technology if the information is false? Is he aware that, contrary to Mr. MacGregor's statement to Ministers that the increased demand for steel is just a blip, the ordering rate for steel strip is being maintained and that already three strip mills in the United Kingdom can be profitably loaded?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am pleased to note the hon. Gentleman's views.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980
    Mr. Ancramasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many offences under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 have been prosecuted by his Department in the last six months; and how this compares with the previous six months.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): The statistics for the number of persons against whom proceedings were taken in 1982 for contravening section 3 of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 are not yet available. However, I can give details of the number of offences made known to the police in that year. In all, some 2,293 such offences were made known to the police in 1982, while the comparable figure for 1981 was 920.
    Mr. Ancram: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing anxiety in Scotland about the working of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, both among the police and public and those who work in that area? Is it not time for a review of the criteria under which bail is allowed?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware that several chief constables in Scotland have expressed their anxiety about the operation of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, but, as has been said, it is important to separate from that the working of that Act and the criteria to be applied when people are granted or not granted bail. That Act does nothing to alter those criteria and recently the Lord Justice-Clerk clearly laid down the circumstances under which people would be allowed bail.
    Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. Does he agree that one of the aims of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 was to try to cut down the number of accused being held in custody awaiting trial, but that that has not happened? Anyone who looks at the figures will see that the number of prisoners on remand has increased. Is that not as genuine a worry as some of the more flamboyant claims that are made in certain chief constables' reports?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman is correct. In 1981, 664 people were on remand, while for 1982 the provisional figure is 649. It is important to understand that, while we want to allow bail wherever possible, we cannot allow a set of circumstances to exist whereby those who are on bail take that as an opportunity to commit further offences. That is why we gave a direction to procurators fiscal in Scotland last May.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: In those cases where accused persons appeal to the High Court of Justiciary to obtain release from prison, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland say whether he has found any mechanism to allow those whose appeals are successful to be released immediately rather than have to wait until the next public day for release because of the problems caused by the non-money bail system?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) also raised. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is currently examining that matter and we hope that it will be possible to bring about some change in the arrangements to prevent that.

    Prosecution Policy
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will meet the procurator fiscal for Kirkcaldy to discuss prosecution policy.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no immediate plans to meet the procurator fiscal at Kirkcaldy. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I do, however, from time to time visit the offices of procurators fiscal to discuss matters with them.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Solicitor-General for Scotland does, perhaps some time in the future, get round to discussing prosecution policy with the procurator fiscal for Kirkcaldy, will he consider discussing with him the extension to Kirkcaldy of the tape recording of interviews of suspects? Will he also make a statement on why, after two years of experiments elsewhere, no report has come from his Department to explain to the House what is happening? Is that not a disgrace?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. As he will appreciate, tape recording and the experiments that are conducted by the police on that are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are closely observing those cases and trials where tape recordings are used before the courts. Recently there was an interesting decision on tape recording in the High Court at Aberdeen.
    Mr. Henderson: In his contacts with the procurator fiscal for Kirkcaldy, will my hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to scotch the somewhat ill-informed rumours that have been going round that there might be some diminution of the activities of the sheriff court at Cupar?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, I am glad to do that. There is no truth in the rumour that there is an intention to close the sheriff court at Cupar. Much business is still being conducted there and it and the other sheriff courts in Fife are intact.
    Mr. Christopher Price: When the Solicitor-General for Scotland meets the procurator fiscal for Kirkcaldy, will he ask him to take a cheap day return to London and explain to the civil servants in the Home Office, and the Home Secretary in particular, the virtues of an independent prosecution system and ask the Home Secretary to include in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that excellent system for England, as recommended by the English Royal Commission on criminal procedure?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: From my limited experience in the House I know that from time to time one receives accolades from unexpected quarters. I shall certainly tell the procurator fiscal of the hon. Gentleman's respect and high regard for the system of independent public prosecutors that we have in Scotland. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that public prosecutors in England are being considered by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has any plans to meet procurators fiscal to discuss prosecution policy and the administration of justice.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no specific plans to meet procurators fiscal to discuss prosecution policy and the administration of justice. These are, of course, matters that I would discuss with fiscals as and when we meet.
    Mr. Marshall: When the Solicitor-General for Scotland eventually meets procurators fiscal what advice will he give to them in view of the persistent rise in crime figures in Scotland, which has been underlined by the official figures for the third quarter of 1982? Is not that record one of which he should be ashamed, in view of the promises on law and order made by the Conservative party during the last election campaign?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, that is not a matter of which the Government should be ashamed. Not only have the Government significantly increased the number of police in Scotland, but we have put on to the statute book the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which anyone who is truly concerned about the issue of law and order in Scotland will appreciate was a most important step forward.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the recent prosecutions of people involved in peaceful demonstrations against nuclear weapons and the recent wise remarks of the learned sheriff, which were unfairly criticised by the unlearned chairman of the Scottish Tory party, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to resist the clamours of his warmongering friends in the Tory party and encourage all Scottish sheriffs to make regular peace-loving statements from their benches?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As, in the course of the year, the hon. Gentleman has thought it appropriate to make particular criticisms of sheriffs principal for the political views that he alleged they have shown in the decisions that they have had to take, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was truly the last person to make any comments on this issue in the House.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland satisfied that the public interest is adequately protected
    342
    where complaints against the police are made involving allegations of criminality and where the appropriate method of inquiry is by means of reference to the procurator fiscal? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether some other means of independent investigation of complaints against the police ought to be on the agenda?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Complaints involving criminality against the police are not referred only to the procurator fiscal. They are also referred to Crown counsel and to either my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate or myself to make a final decision. It is interesting that the Select Committee on Home Affairs, when considering this issue involving England and Wales, made the recommendation that those south of the border should follow the procedure followed north of the border.

    Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what representations he has had from the Law Society for Scotland and Scottish law agents on clauses 53 to 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has received three letters from the secretary of the Law Society of Scotland. I have received a letter from the secretary of the Scottish. Law Agents Society.
    Mr. Hughes: As a result of these representations, clause 53 of the Bill no longer applies to Scotland. I welcome the Solicitor-General taking account of those representations, but was there not a total failure on his part adequately to consult Scottish legal opinion before these measures were included in the Bill?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, I do not accept that at all. I am surprised that some of the representations that I have received have made no reference to the Criminal Evidence Act 1965, on which clause 53 is largely based, although it does not apply to public records. It is more appropriate to await the report from the Scottish Law Commission. It was against that background, and because of the representations that were received, that the Government sought to disapply this clause to Scotland.
    Later—
    Mr. Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw it to your attention that, while we have now passed the last Scottish Question Time before the House rises for the recess, the Secretary of State for Scotland has not yet made clear the Government's intentions with regard to the budgets of those local authorities which are in excess of the guidelines for the financial year which starts in a few days' time? There is immense concern in my constituency that we still do not know whether the Secretary of State intends to enforce further job cuts and reductions in services? May I put it to you—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) knows that that is none of my business. It is a matter for the Minister.
    Mr. Strang rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not so far submitted a point of order. Perhaps he will try to hang his remarks on to a point of order.
    Mr. Strang: My point of order is to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be utterly reprehensible if an important announcement of this nature were made other than in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another matter, on which I shall not comment.

Overseas Students (Awards)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about awards to overseas students.
On 16 December last, the House of Lords ruled on the meaning of "ordinary residence" in relation to the entitlement of students from overseas to mandatory awards. The main effect is that students who were in this country during the three years before their period of higher education essentially for the purpose of taking a lower-level course of education may have been eligible for a mandatory award, subject to a means test on their parents' income. They were not so eligible under the "real home" test which formed the basis of the previous advice to local authorities by this and the previous Administration.
The cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers of this ruling could be substantial. Much of the benefit will go to students from overseas who have come here with no expectation of receiving support from British public funds. The Government's policy is to support selected students and countries under the aid programme and the programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 8 February. Other overseas students are welcome but are expected to pay their own way.
There will be no retrospective legislation, but the Government have decided to restore the position on mandatory awards to that which successive Governments thought and intended it to be. I have today laid before Parliament amendments to the 1982 awards regulations, which will come into force tomorrow. Their effect will be that local authorities in England and Wales will not be obliged to make new awards after today to overseas students who have been resident here wholly or mainly for the purposes of education. I am also today issuing guidance to local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is making similar arrangements.
Our intention on fees for overseas students for 1983–84 onwards is to retain the differential arrangements which have in fact existed for many years. I shall make a further announcement as soon as possible as to how this should be done.
Local authorities in England and Wales receive 90 per cent. Exchequer grant on their expenditure on mandatory awards, which in Scotland are paid direct by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Universities and other institutions in Great Britain directly funded by the Exchequer will be compensated for any unavoidable loss of fee income.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: It is unfortunate that in a commendable effort at brevity the Secretary of State might have achieved a little obscurity. Therefore, it is necessary to pry, especially as the House is rising within the next day or so, into the precise meaning of this important statement. I recall the deathless words of the present Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) in January 1970, when, in response to questions about the Tory party's new policy on full cost fees, he said:
"We shan't make the savings that we plan if we start mucking about."
346
Mucking about has brought us to the present pass.
Does the Secretary of State recall or acknowledge that the full cost fees po licy turned discomfort and inconvenience into crisis for many who were trying to meet the cost of high education out of their own pockets? Does the Secretary of State also recall that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in early 1980 asked the then Secretary of State for Education and Science—the present Secretary of State's predecessor—to define the term "ordinary residence" and that his reply was that the courts should decide?
Is it not a matter of general knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) then warned that it might take two or three years for such a decision to come from the courts and that he was right? As a consequence of the Government's refusal to give a definition, has not great confusion been caused in local education authorities and in higher educational institutions in addition to the confusion and hardship caused to many of the students involved? Why is it that, after such a long time, there is further delay, especially when the Under-Secretary of State gave an undertaking to the House on 25 January that we could expect a statement on this matter shortly? Why is it necessary, as it appears, that the House should have a separate statement on awards today with yet another one to come later concerning the much more costly question of the implications for higher education fees of the Scarman judgment of 16 December last?
Will the provision in paragraph 4 of the Secretary of State's statement that there will be no retrospective legislation apply as much to fees as it does to awards? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] As the two are closely analogous, and as arrangements have run in tandem, that is a legitimate question to ask to enable the House to have a clear idea about exactly what the Government's intentions are in respect of fees that could have huge cost implications. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I explained my reasons earlier for having to go in detail into this statement. If the statement had not been produced at the back end of this part of the Session, and if the education press had not gone to bed in anticipation of Easter, hon. Members might have had a full debate, but that is not possible. That is why my questioning must be detailed.
Would it not be sensible now to recognise that the Scarman judgment is a shock to the system and that it provides an opportunity for a fresh start? Is it not that fresh start that the Secretary of State is proposing to make in that part of his statement in which he said:
"local authorities … will not be obliged to make new awards after today to overseas students who have been resident here wholly or mainly for the purposes of education."
If students of immigrant families are here for their education and for perpetual residence, will they enjoy the full benefits of being students regardless of when they came here?
Would it be a case—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] I recognise that exposing the utter failure of the Conservative party is bound to provoke a reaction. Will a student returning with his family to this country as a consequence of unsuccessful emigration now qualify for full awards, as he should in the belief of the Labour party? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider adopting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]—the Labour party's policy for the proper treatment of overseas students on the basis of their poverty or the poverty of the country from which they came, and of their direct and legitimate

347
entitlement to awards if they are in this country for purposes other than those of education; indeed, for purposes of permanent residence.
Could I finally ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—what the word "substantial" means, in paragraph 3 of his statement, in reference to the cost to taxpayers and ratepayers? What figure does his Department have to make good the judgment in the terms of the statement that the Secretary of State has made to the House?
In paragraph 5, do the differential arrangements that the Secretary of State proposes to maintain apply to the further introduction of the race relations exemption circular or is there a more complex meaning to that?
Lastly—[HON. MEMBERS: "You have said that."] All that noise, Mr. Speaker, is music to my ears, as you will understand.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has there been some change in the long-standing arrangement that Ministers make statements to the House and hon. Members in all parts of the House are given the opportunity to ask questions about them?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has asked a few questions and I believe that he is about to ask another.
Mr. Kinnock: Once again, absolutely accurate, Mr. Speaker.
Lastly, what is the precise meaning of the final sentence of the statement? If the differential arrangements are to continue in existence and if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to compensate for any unavoidable loss of fee income to universities and other institutions directly funded by the Exchequer, what losses does he expect they will make as a result of the statement's implementation from today?
Sir Keith Joseph: The Labour Government began the process of raising fees for overseas students. We have continued with the advice that they gave. I do not apologise to the House for the time that it has taken to come forward with a statement, because it was difficult to judge the implications of the judgment of the other place. There will be no retrospection. The Government do not as yet have figures with which to answer the hon. Gentleman's last questions. There was an urgent need to make a statement about mandatory awards, but the need to make a statement about fees is not quite so urgent. However, I shall make such a statement as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman's last questions were not immediately related to the statement.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the corresponding arrangements in Northern Ireland be made by administrative procedure and without subordinate legislation?
Sir Keith Joseph: I understand that the position in Northern Ireland is quite different in that its awards regulations already exclude from entitlement to an award someone who is resident wholly or mainly for educational purposes.
Sir William van Straubenzee: Are not the Opposition's credentials for getting heated about this issue quite nullified by the fact that it is on record that they
348
established differential fees between home and overseas students? Does my right hon. Friend understand that there will be widespread appreciation of the fact that the decision of the other place is to be observed without retrospection, but that even those—among whom I count myself—who are most enthusiastic about the cause of overseas students will feel that the law before the announcement could not be sustained, in the interests of overseas students themselves?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We will all agree that it is one thing to seek retrospection and quite another to seek to change the law to what we all thought it was.
Mr. Beith: How are college authorities to cope with the fact that they do not know how they are to administer differential fees for this coming academic year? Does the Secretary of State realise that his original announcement did so much damage to British interests overseas that even the Foreign Secretary's new proposals have not undone it all, and that this statement will certainly do nothing to undo it?
Sir Keith Joseph: I recognise that colleges will want to know as soon as possible how the Government intend to carry out their intentions in relation to fees. That is why I promised to make a statement as soon as possible. I need not be apologetic for the Government's continuation of the Labour Government's policy of differential charges for overseas students. It was an indescriminate policy of subsidisation, and I think that we got nearer to getting it right in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend's statement mean that any overseas students have been re-categorised as home students? If so, will not the University Grants Committee have to fix again its targets for home students for 1984–85?
Sir Keith Joseph: I should like to consider that. If my hon. Friend would care to table a question, I shall give him the answer.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement has not cleared up anything? Will he confirm that the Select Committee unanimously advised his predecessor to legislate three years ago? If he had done that, this problem would not have arisen. Will the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that under a Labour Government there were three categories of student: first, full overseas students; second, students who were denied maintenance grants but who paid home student fees; third, students paying home student fees? Does the right hon. Gentleman now intend to revert to that situation? What will he eventually do about fees, now that he has acted on maintenance grants? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the cost? Will universities and local authorities be reimbursed for something that was not in any way their fault, but wholly the responsibility of the Secretary of State's predecessor, who failed to legislate and who simply relied on the uncertain judgment in Stransky v. Stransky?
Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. I have, I hope, definitively cleared up the position about awards. A Labour Government gave advice, which this Government continued. I reserve what I have said about fees and about how we shall carry out our intentions. I confirm that universities will be reimbursed for any unavoidable costs. Local authorities, as is already provided, receive 90 per cent. of any mandatory awards that they find it proper to pay.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that there will be no retrospection, but does he not realise that many of the fees payable by overseas students are astronomical, particularly for courses on medicine and dentistry? Will not the right hon. Gentleman therefore review the situation sympathetically and beyond the level outlined in the statement made by the Foreign Secretary?
Sir Keith Joseph: We are always ready to reconsider, but we have recently arrived at a proper mixture of, on the one hand, being discriminating in our help towards individual students and countries, and, on the other hand, ending indiscriminate subsidies. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the high cost of fees for overseas students. I accept that they are high, but the judgment brought an unexpected windfall to many students who managed to go through three years of education in this country without any help from the British taxpayer.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his statement does not in any way affect the £46 million additional money that goes to overseas students principally from Third world countries, as they are in great need of such help? Will he also confirm that the money that is spent from Government funds on overseas students will not adversely affect the position and number of home students?
Sir Keith Joseph: I can confirm both my hon. Friend's queries.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since engineering is one of the courses most sought after by overseas students, does it accord with the Secretary of State's sense of morality and justice to pass by on the other side of the road and to allow the UGC to fine Swansea university and Heriot Watt university in my constituency for having too many engineering students?
Sir Keith Joseph: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but that question has nothing to do with the statement.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that today's statement in no way alters the position of awards to refugees, particularly those who have been granted asylum in the United Kingdom?
Sir Keith Joseph: I understand that refugees are treated as home students, and are therefore not affected. I should like to confirm that for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tom McNally: Does the Secretary of State recall that on 9 June the Foreign Secretary promised the House that the definition of home and overseas students would be re-examined? Is the Secretary of State's announcement today the end of that re-examination? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who asked whether the children of immigrants, such as east African Asians, who are in Britain now would have any grant prejudiced by this ruling?
Sir Keith Joseph: No, this statement is a response to a House of Lords ruling. Both sides of the House expect the Government to react in this way. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the position of those immigrants is not affected by the statement, and is still under consideration.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does not the Government's penny-pinching attitude towards overseas students contrast markedly with their lavish attitude towards Argentina? They have been prepared to back massive loans to prop up that country's economy to enable it to purchase military materials for possible use against us. When the Secretary of State says, for example, that he will issue guidance notes to local authorities, what status will those guidance notes have, will they be legally enforceable, and will he place a copy in the Library?
Sir Keith Joseph: The letter to authorities which will be sent out today will be placed in the Library. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) appears to be in favour of indiscriminate subsidy from the bulk of the people in this country to people overseas, whatever the wealth of their families or of their countries.
Finally, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Government's policy is responsible for the problem. The previous Government started the process by raising overseas students' fees.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not fair to say that today we have witnessed a Secretary of State for Education and Science, a Tory theologian, who is guilty of fudging and mudging. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] That is one of the phrases that Dr. Death uses from time to time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is probably busy on a big job. Would not the Secretary of State have more room for maneouvre had not his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy come to the House earlier this week to announce a £1·5 million mandatory award to a deep mining student?
Sir Keith Joseph: As the original importer of the said mining student, I take some pride in the success that he appears to have had.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of two applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall take them in the order in which I received them.

Bolsover District Council
3.53 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to a statement by the Minister for Housing and Construction last Wednesday at Question Time when, as reported in c. 853 of the Official Report, he referred to Bolsover district council having spent only 43 per cent. of its HIP allocation in this financial year. The Bolsover housing committee met today, about which I informed the Minister by telephone, and, contrary to the Minister's extremely misleading statement, which I am sure he will want to correct—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's dispute with the Minister is not a point of order that I can settle. I can rule only when our Standing Orders, conventions and rules are upset. If the hon. Gentleman, who is not without ingenuity, can find a point of order on which I can rule, I shall in a spirit of goodwill, listen to him, but I am a little doubtful.
Mr. Skinner: I was coming to the point, Mr. Speaker.
In view of my telephone call to the Minister's office several hours ago, has he said that he will be making a statement to correct this matter, as the Bolsover district council has spent not only all the Tory Government's allocation but on 6 December applied for more, and received another £.1·2 million—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very good to the hon. Gentleman. I allowed him to make his main point before I ruled that it was not a point of order.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (Demonstration)
3.55 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the gratuitous offer by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to provide my constituents living close to the royal ordnance factory at Burghfield, particularly those living at the Mearings, with passes and car stickers to enable them to get to and from their houses during this weekend's demonstrations organised by the CND, as if it were a legal authority."
The letter from CND is couched in such a way as to give the impression that CND is a recognised authority entitled to circulate its passports to whomsoever it chooses to minimise
"any inconvenience or risk to you and your family … Obviously there will be some inconvenience, but it is in our interest and in yours that there should be no unpleasantness over your leaving and returning home… Cars bearing these stickers"
the CND stickers—
"are to be allowed through."
The idea that any organisation, no matter what its intentions, should take upon itself to write and to issue passes to law-abiding citizens of this country without which they may be prevented from having free access to their homes by demonstrators called out by that same organisation—in this case, CND—is to my mind arrogantly high-handed and suggests that CND expects its supporters to prevent Thames valley police from making it possible for my constituents to go about their lawful business unmolested—a worrying portent for this weekend's demonstration in Berkshire.
That is my specific concern and why I believe the House should debate this matter now. I submit that this incident raises the important question whether an outside body, such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, planning a massive demonstration this weekend that will cause enormous inconvenience and aggravation to hundreds, if not thousands, of people—many of whom are my constituents—as well as tying down large numbers of police, should not be asked to enter into some form of agreement to guarantee the absolute right to law-abiding persons to have access to their houses and to all highways and public roads close to a demonstration.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this matter is very urgent because the demonstration is to start tomorrow, 31 March.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the gratuitous offer by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to provide my constituents living close to the royal ordnance factory at Burghfield, particularly those living at the Mearings, with passes and car stickers to enable them to get to and from their houses during this weekend's demonstrations organised by CND, as if it were a legal authority."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.

353
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Later—
Mr. Tom McNally: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While very much respecting your ruling on the first Standing Order application, as it is Home Office questions tomorrow and the Home Secretary will be present, will it be possible for him to make a statement to the House about the legal implications of the issuing of laissez-passars by the CND?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words will have been noted. I never invite Ministers to make statements—they ask me, and I have never yet said no.

Wytch Farm (Sale)
4 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the impending forced sale of the Wytch Farm oilfield".
The matter is specific and important because the Government's policy is to force the British Gas Corporation to sell its interest in a most important onshore nuclear oilfield, which has developed on its own initiative into an extremely valuable asset, for no reason other than the Government's ideological obsession to strip public corporations of their assets. On numerous occasions hon. Members have expressed their fears that the Government are seeking to force the British Gas Corporation to sell its interest at well below its true value to the nation.
The matter is urgent because I understand that today the Secretary of State for Energy is meeting—or has met—the corporation in an attempt to force the sale at a low price.
In reply to a question in the House on Monday of this week, the Secretary of State said:
"The only independent valuation of which I am aware is that produced last month by the distinguished oil analyst, Wood Mackenzie and Company, which put a value of between £141 million and £213 million on the BGC's interest."—[Official Report, 28 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 12.]
That statement contrasts disturbingly with a written answer on 29 July last year, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), when the Under-Secretary said:
"My Department has seen. on a confidential basis, a copy of an independent report prepared by petroleum consultants on the prospects for PL.089."—[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 636.]
It is quite clear that two valuations were given to the Secretary of State for Energy. They were made known to the Department, and must have been known to him. The only valuation of which the Secretary of State claimed knowledge last Monday was, not surprisingly, much lower than the one to which I have referred.
Before the House has an opportunity to consider this matter, and in the context of misleading information given to the House by the Secretary of State for Energy, a fait accompli may have taken place. I therefore seek to call the Secretary of State to the House to account for his actions before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
"the impending forced sale of the Wytch Farm oilfield."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and to the arguments that he advanced, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 15 APRIL
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I beg to give notice that on Friday 15 April I shall draw attention to the problems of the dependencies of the United Kingdom, and move a resolution.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged, but what the hon. Gentleman has said is a little exceptional.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris

Dr. Edmund Marshall

Anderson Strathclyde (Prevention of Take-over)
4.5 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent any takeover of Anderson Strathclyde plc which is against the public interest; and for connected purposes.
It was a former Tory Prime Minister who coined the phrase about the unacceptable face of capitalism. A decade or so ago the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was referring to the activities of a multinational company called Lonrho, which had South African connections. Ironically, we are today discussing the activities of another multinational company, Charter Consolidated, which also has South African connections and is in the process of taking over the Scottish company Anderson Strathclyde.
It is not simply another example of yet another takeover and the growth of power of multinational companies. It is an instance of the unacceptable face of capitalism infiltrating the corridors of power at Westminster, Whitehall and even the British Cabinet itself. It is an example of the abdication of responsibility and gross dereliction of duty by people who were appointed to responsible public positions, supposedly to look after the public interest, and who, far from looking after that public interest, have acted against it and put their own private interests before the public good.
I and other hon. Members have previously referred to the role of the non-elected Secretary of State for Trade, Lord Cockfield, with his vested interest in Charter Consolidated. It is worth pointing out that the Financial Times and other newspapers recently stated that Lord Cockfield had not dealt in the shares of that company since he became a Minister. In fact, the register of shareholders for Charter Consolidated tells a different story. It shows that Lord Cockfield's account for 2,500 ordinary shares was not closed until 24 May 1982—three years after his appointment as a Minister, and three weeks after Charter Consolidated's bid for Anderson Strathclyde was made. The week after the closure of Lord Cockfield's account, his Department formally referred the contested bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
There is also the role of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who, I understand, was, and possibly still is, a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department of Trade. He is a director of the large corporate public relations firm Charles Barker, which handles Charter Consolidated's PR account. I am informed that the executive director of Charter Consolidated, Mr. John Richardson, wrote to the hon. Member for Lewes at the Department—a lengthy personal letter—about the virtues of the merger.
Charter Consolidated was also being helped in its bid by its financial advisers Hambros—another company with good connections with the Tory party. According to the register of interests, the Tory MP for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) is a director of Hambros Bank, and the Hambros group has regularly given financial donations to the Conservative party—I understand of the order of £20,000 a year.
During a debate on the Floor of the House last week the Minister for Trade told my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that he did not live in the

357
same squalid world as my hon. Friend. I wish to tell the Minister, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me, that we are glad that we do not live in the same squalid world as he and his friends in the Tory party. The whole matter stinks.
Last week, the week before, last month, last year, or whenever, the Minister repeatedly failed to give a satisfactory explanation of his unprecedented decision to overrule the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am forced to conclude that people in high places have been nobbled by their rich Tory friends. We can see the result in the disastrous effect on the Scottish economy in terms of employment—or, rather, potential unemployment. We already have more than a third of a million unemployed in Scotland, and now more than 3,000 additional jobs in Anderson Strathclyde are at risk because of the reckless measures taken by the Government.
The history of the Scottish economy shows that the growth of multinational companies through mergers, takeovers, and so on, leads to increased non-accountability. It leads to people wanting to get their greedy hands on financial interests, with a minimum amount of accountability to local interests. The result is remote control, lack of local accountability to the work force, and so on.
For all those reasons, and others, not only the majority of members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but the trade unions representing the work force, the board of Anderson Strathclyde, local authorities in Scotland, and most of the customers of Anderson Strathclyde expressed their total opposition to the takeover. Unfortunately, the Minister allowed it to go ahead, which led to the events of last week when a sufficient number of shareholders sold out to Charter Consolidated. Some people may think that the motion that I tabled three weeks ago has been overtaken by events, because the takeover is now a fait accompli, but I shall explain that that is not necessarily so.
My original intention was to say that no takeover of Anderson Strathclyde would be possible unless the proposed takeover had the approval of, first, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, second, the majority of the Anderson Strathclyde work force, third, the majority of the Anderson Strathclyde shareholders, and, fourth, the majority of members of the Scottish Grand Committee in this House. That would introduce an element of not only parliamentary but industrial democracy. If there is a case for saying that shareholders should have a say in the future ownership of a company, surely the same is true for the work force. If those who invest capital in a company have a say in the ownership and future ownership of a company, those who invest their labour should also have a say. The proposals in my Bill would ultimately be subject to the approval of the Anderson Strathclyde work force.
In view of last week's events, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to nullify the takeover and
358
preserve the public interest is to take out some form of public ownership of Anderson Strathclyde. I have a great deal of sympathy for full-scale nationalisation in an instance like this, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends would also see considerable merit in that. However, no doubt voices would be raised in the House about the possibility of demands for compensation, some of them legitimate, especially for those shareholders of Anderson Strathclyde who remained loyal to the company by refusing to sell out to Charter Consolidated.
There are other hon. Members who often speak of the merits of the mixed economy. So, in an effort to broaden support on both sides of the House for my measure, I shall moderate my demands and propose a mixed economy solution. In other words, I propose to take into public ownership only those shares that are now held by Charter Consolidated and transfer that holding to the Scottish Development Agency. That would ensure a major public stake in Anderson Strathclyde.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Eminently reasonable.
Mr. Canavan: Finally, on the question of compensation, I should be prepared to consider needy cases on their merits. However, I am bound to say that some cases deserve nothing at all. For example, Lord Cockfield and his friends would have great difficulty in putting forward a case that was based on need. So I am of the opinion that he and his friends should not get a penny of compensation.
I should also bear in mind the morality—or rather the immorality—of the South African connection of Charter Consolidated, because those who willingly and knowingly invest in the evil of apartheid should not be compensated at all. Thus, compensatior. under the Bill would be kept to an absolute minimum and the majority public stake in Anderson Strathclyde would ensure that the company remains a Scottish-based one, responsive to the aspirations of its work force, the needs of its customers, and the general public interest. I therefore ask the House to approve unanimously my moderate Bill.
Mr. Cryer: The essence of moderation.
Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister for Trade wish to put his name to it?
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Gavin Strang, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Stuart Holland.

Anderson Strathclyde (Prevention of Take-over)
  ANDERSON STRATHCLYDE (PREVENTION OF TAKEOVER)
  Mr. Dennis Canavan accordingly presented a Bill to prevent any takeover of Anderson Strathclyde plc which is against the public interest; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.16 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
In response to a question in Hansard on 11 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), about the urban development grants programme, I told the House that doubts had been expressed by some authorities
"about their powers under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 to grant aid land acquisition and building works comprised in projects approved for urban development grant because one of the specific powers conferred on them is to make loans for these purposes."
I said then that I was advised that there were sufficient grounds for doubt that it would be right to amend the law in England and Wales to clarify the matter, and that I intended to do that at the earliest opportunity. I have brought the Bill before the House today in an effort to discharge the undertaking that I gave the right hon. Gentleman. I made clear that
"In the meantime, I am prepared to pay urban development grant towards expenditure incurred for those purposes on approved schemes. I hope to announce the first list of project approvals shortly."—[Official Report, 11 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 484.]
I did that four days later.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. King: May I just get started and say a few words.
Mr. Cunningham: It is on what the Minister said.
Mr. King: I was grateful at that time for the general welcome that was given to the urban development grant scheme, which I think has been widely welcomed by all political parties as a way in which to direct and stimulate private investment, using public money as the pump primer to get more investment into inner cities and areas of social need.
Mr. Cunningham: I want to ask the Minister about his first sentence. He seems to be accepting that there is a doubt as to what the law is at the moment. Does that mean that this Bill is intended to remove that doubt retrospectively? Will this Bill have retrospective effect? Yes or no?
Mr. King: No. It does not have retrospective effect because it involves payments that are to be made in the year 1983–84. The proposals that I announced on 15 February concern schemes that will be implemented in 1983–84. Provided the Bill proceeds satisfactorily, I trust that there will be no question of retrospective effect.
I am grateful for what I believe is the general welcome that has been given to this proposal for urban development grants. It involves the powers of both central Government and local authorities to pay grants, in that the urban development grants element of the total expenditure is met under the normal urban programme provision of 75 per cent. central Government and 25 per cent. local government grant.
One of the merits of the urban development grant scheme is that it covers a wide range of projects. In a
360
moment I shall say a word about the latest batch, which further illustrates the variety of projects that are possible under the scheme. We are eager to encourage such projects. We are anxious that they should be supported and to see no impediment to the powers available to local authorities so that they can play their part and make their contribution to the projects that are approved.
I hasten to say that the Bill will benefit areas where there was doubt and it was thought that there were not adequate powers. However, we expect that for a considerable number of authorities, depending on the project involved—it may be a housing project or an environmental project—there will be adequate powers. It is in connection with the possible overlap with the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963, as amended, that that doubt has arisen. We wish to remove that doubt. The other reason why there is variety in the individual authorities is that their powers depend on their local Acts, which vary. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that there is a considerable variety of local legislation that gives different powers to local authorities.
I do not want to labour this point as this is a technical amendment. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) may wish to debate this point. There may be an implication that somehow the Bill increases the powers of local authorities to spend money under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. If they allocate the funds that are available to them under section 137 for these projects, that restricts the funds that are available for other projects. As those projects will have private sector investment, be approved by the Government and put forward by the local authority, they will be partnership schemes and in that sense will tend to reduce the scope for the abuse of section 137 that the hon. Gentleman has suggested has happened in certain areas, and which has given him great concern.
The fundamental aspect of section 137 is that it is the catch-all or provide-all provision that enables local authorities to incur expenditure up to the product of a 2p rate in any financial year for the purposes that in their opinion are in the interests of their area or its inhabitants. It is a well-known and useful provision, much valued by people in local government and used in the vast majority of cases responsibly and sensibly for a number of different purposes. It also gives valuable local discretion to local authorities.
There is a clear prescription in the Local Government Act 1972 that makes it clear that that power cannot be used where there already exists a specific power, albeit narrow, to incur expenditure. The problem that has arisen relates to the Local Authorities (Land) Act and, possibly, to local Acts where there are specific powers. The power provided under the amendment to the Local Authorities (Land) Act made it clear that a local authority can make a loan. The doubt was expressed that as there was a power to make an advance, but it could be only a loan, it prevented the use of section 137 where an authority wishes to make a grant for a similar purpose, whether for the acquisition of land or the carrying out of building works on land. There was doubt about whether that was a real uncertainty and difficulty, but I was satisfied that to avoid any possible doubt, it was sensible to invite the House to pass the amendment to the existing legislation, which is incorporated in the Bill.
The order-making power in the Bill may exercise the minds of some hon. Members. The Bill gives the Secretary

361
of State the final say in deciding whether an order shall be made. Subsection (3) enables the Secretary of State to limit the extent to which a local Act shall be disregarded for the purpose of determining section 137 spending powers, and subsection (4) provides for consultation between the Secretary of State and the local authority before an order is made.
I have spoken briefly about the amendment. I have not sought to go through the Bill because if one starts doing that one comes out at the other end before one realises that one has started. I have outlined the purpose of the Bill. It relates to a narrow point that I described to the right hon. Member for Ardwick in my answer to him. I do not underestimate the value that it can bring in respect of avoiding doubt over the implementation of the urban development grant. I think that it will prove to be an important new scheme.
I announced to the House on 15 February the first 41 projects that I had approved, which amounted to an additional £50 million of new investment, of which about £10 million will be urban development grant. They will attract £40 million of private sector investment, thereby achieving a ratio of 4:1. Today I am approving a further 16 projects amounting to a further £32 million of new investment in inner cities and areas of social need. That will comprise some £6 million of public sector contribution. There will be £4·5 million from the national Exchequer and £1·5 million from the local authority concerned. About £26 million of private sector investment will be attracted giving us a slightly better ratio of 4·5:1.
I shall quickly give the names of the authorities of which the projects that they have put forward in partnership with the private sector I am supporting. I think that I shall be acquitted of political prejudice. The authorities are Newcastle, Leeds, Wakefield, Sheffield, South Tyneside, Birmingham, Rochdale, Sandwell, Brent, Hackney, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. The projects covered involve housing, industrial units, craft workshops and a number of schemes that will undoubtedly be in areas and sites that otherwise would have remained derelict and unimproved. Now the inner cities will see economic activity once again and will provide employment, with the construction work involved and also with the subsequent occupations that will be created. The projects will play a useful part in removing further eyesores. I have therefore announced to the House so far under the scheme some £.16 million of urban development grant projects approved, which have now generated a total of £80 million of new investment. I hope that the House will agree that this was a most encouraging start.
The House will be aware that there are still a considerable number of projects awaiting assessment, appraisal and, I hope, approval. I point out to hon. Members who have raised the matter and to the local authorities concerned that I am aware that authorities are still awaiting a reply from my Department about projects. They will appreciate that this has been a new scheme for the Department to manage and that much additional work has been entailed. Local authorities, too, had to understand how to submit applications properly.
Only this morning I had a discussion with my noble Friend the Minister for Local Government about how we can speed up our end of the appraisal process. The House will appreciate that it is important that the appraisal is done thoroughly. Anyone who makes even a cursory study of the projects, especially some that have been rejected, will
362
know that we have to consider carefully the key issue as to whether the project would proceed, were it not for the public sector contribution. This is an important consideration in the management of and responsibility for public funds. Therefore, a careful appraisal must be made.
There are ways in which we can improve the processing and appraisal procedures and the final approval by Ministers. I am anxious that something is done. I know that private investors and developers have approached local authorities about projects and that the authorities are embarrassed because they have not had a reply from the Department. They are anxious to proceed with the schemes. I hope that we be able to give early replies about the projects which are still coming forward.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: My right hon. Friend said earlier that he did not want to be accused of political prejudice, which I understand. However, I should like him to be a little politically prejudiced. Surely what he is saying is that he is liberating a large amount of private enterprise money which will go into areas which would otherwise not get an opportunity to be redeveloped for the good of the people who live there. Surely that is something that we as a Conservative Government should be proud of.
Mr. King: If my hon. Friend was under the impression that I was not proud of the announcement I was making, I am sorry that I misled the House. I am extremely proud of the urban development grant scheme. It makes a major contribution in a most important area. Anyone who makes the most limited study of the problems of inner cities—the House will know that I spend quite a bit of time on these problems—will know that there will never be the public resources that we need to tackle all the problems. Capital investment is needed. One of the tragedies of the last 10 years is that inner cities have seen investment decline. We must get investment back into the inner cities. The most effective way to do it is by enlisting the support, enthusiasm and skills of the private sector.
We must unlock the substantial resources that exist within private investment, in the pension funds, insurance companies, banks and building societies; these resources could make a major contribution to tackling some of the problems. The type of investment which institutions are prepared to make is important for improving the environment of inner cities.
Mr. Don Dixon: The Minister has mentioned inner city areas many times. I was pleased that he referred to south Tyneside at the beginning of his speech. Will he not accept that urban areas such as south Tyneside have as many, if not more, social problems than some of the inner city areas that he keeps talking about? It is a misnomer to refer continually to inner cities as if they were the only areas with social problems. I remind him again that the area that I represent has more social problems than many inner city areas.
Mr. King: I used the term "inner cities" in a fairly wide context. I make it clear that urban dereliction exists in many areas. It is part of our programme to seek to remove it. The more we can bring in additional resources from the private sector and the more we do to ensure that such resources as exist within the urban area may be used to attack the problem across the widest front, the better. The hon. Member will know the language of the partnership

363
authority, the programme authority or the designated district. Several of the new schemes have helped to get away from too narrow a definition into other pockets of dereliction where we are anxious to see a contribution made.
It is exciting, and I hope the House will share the excitement, to be able to announce this year urban development expenditure of £349 million, which is some 28 per cent. above the provision for last year. The expenditure on urban deprivation or whatever phrase one uses, will be greater because I have been able to announce to the House on successive occasions substantial additional programmes of investment. On the derelict land grant I announced in addition to the public sector investment of £30 million a contribution of £200 million from the private sector. I am in the business of seeing how I can harness the most substantial resources effectively and viably. It is not just a case of pumping in subsidy but ensuring that there are viable improvements in inner city areas so that they can thereafter become self-sustaining. That is the approach I am seeking to adopt.
I want to ensure that there is no legislative impediment for the few local authorities that are affected by existing legislation; it is not possible to be certain how many are affected. Because I wished to respond to the local authorities which are concerned about the matter, I have brought forward this short Bill at the first opportunity to remove any doubts. It is against that background that I commend the Bill to the House.
4.37 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I should say at the outset that we shall assist the Bill on its way to the statute book. We have some criticisms. We shall seek to improve the Bill, but we support the intentions behind it.
The necessity for the Bill is yet another example of the almost lunatic incompetence that has afflicted almost every move of successive Secretaries of State for the Environment during the past four years. Scarcely a week goes by without new evidence of the mess into which the Government have plunged themselves and local government as well. Every time they so much as touch anything to do with local government finance, it somehow seems to go wrong.
Last Thursday, for example, we had an extraordinary written answer by the Secretary of State who, in a move unprecedented even for him, chided local authorities for having claimed too little rate support grant. He warned them that, whether they like it or not, they will get more. It seems that local authorities have under-claimed rate support grant to the tune of £57 million for the new financial year and that, instead of the usual clawback that is the consequence of aggregate over-claim, there is to be yet another of the Government's innovations in local government finance. A new name will have to be invented for the bizarre process—possibly clawforward or handback.
The Secretary of State, whose sheer cheek knows no bounds, asserted in his answer that the unprecedented move was a result of the effective operation of the grant system, but it is really the result of a grant system so berserk in its methodology that local authorities have no idea how to claim. In despair, and knowing the
364
Government very well, they have claimed too little in the hope that, by doing so, they will fend off the evil eye of the Secretary of State.
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may regret that purple passage. I asked my officials whether it was the first time that this had happened. I am advised that it happened in 1975, or 1977, when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister.
Mr. Kaufman: I accept that, but we did not claim to have introduced a system so open and clear that no one could possibly misunderstand it. Nor did we claim, as the Secretary of State did in a desperate last sentence in his answer, that it was the result of the effective operation of the grant system.
The Bill is yet another example of the confusion that the Secretary of State generates wherever he goes. He referred to my question to him last month and his reply to it. When I asked whether the legislation governing urban development grants was effective, the Secretary of State airily replied that it was perfectly all right, but that as there might just be some small ground for doubt, he intended to amend the law to "clarify" the matter. We should always be wary when the Secretary of State uses that word. He first used it in its special sense in last year's rate support grant report when he discovered that the holdback scheme was illegal and announced that legislation would be introduced to "clarify" the law. The language of the previous Secretary of State was Heseltinese. We now have King's English, but that, too, requires translation. The word "clarify" is King's English for retrospectively legalising something that was illegal when the Secretary of State originally did it. Last month he was saying comfortably that there was no more than some ground for doubt about the right of local authorities to make grants, but the explanatory memorandum to the Bill flatly states:
"Section 137 does not at present authorise expenditure for a purpose for which other, albeit narrower, powers to spend exist."
That is not doubt. It is prohibition, and the Bill rightly removes it.
Mr. George Cunningham: Perhaps I may put to the right hon. Gentleman the question that I put to the Secretary of State. Is it his understanding that the Bill has retrospective effect in making legal something that has already been done and which, but for the Bill, might be held to have been unlawful?
Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State, quite defiantly in his reply to me last month, said that although the position was as he described it, he was nevertheless prepared to pay urban development grant towards expenditure incurred for those purposes on approved schemes. The hon. Gentleman's understanding may be better than mine in these opaque circumstances. I understood that the Secretary of State was prepared to pay the money to the local authorities—there has never been any doubt about his power to do that—but that it was not certain that the authorities could use that money until the Bill authorised it. Therefore, I am not entirely sure whether the Bill is retrospective. As I shall show, however, other areas of the Bill are so imprecise that it is difficult to justify them in their present form.
The intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) illustrates the nature of the muddle. The position is the more reprehensible because, only a year ago, the Government

365
conducted a thorough review of section 137 of the 1972 Act but did not discover the flaw now being corrected by the Bill. At the time, of course, the Secretary of State was not seeking to provide greater powers for local authorities to assist urban regeneration. Indeed, he issued a consultation paper aimed at restricting those powers, proposing that the financial limits for such expenditure should be reduced from a 2p rate to a ½p rate and that aid should be limited to independent firms employing no more than 25 people. He further proposed that all local Act powers should be terminated and that section 137 should be repealed. There was an outburst of rage from local authorities, and in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act the Government abandoned the restrictions proposed in the consultation paper and expanded the powers.
The Bill is the latest stage in the long process of educating the Government in the value of local enterprise, but the Secretary of State has made a number of mistakes in the way in which he has dealt with it. First, he promised consultation on the Bill—for example, with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—but there was no consultation.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has compounded that failure in the text of the Bill, because clause 1(4) fails to provide for consultation with the local authority associations as well as with the local authorities. we shall seek to remedy that in Committee, and I hope that the Government will accept our amendment.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State gives himself power to discriminate between local authorities when making an order not restricting the use of section 137 and does not even require himself to give reasons for that discrimination.
As the AMA put it to me in a letter today, the Secretary of State now has even more ability to place one authority in a more advantageous position than another. He does not have to give reasons for his choice. He is required to consult only those local authorities affected by the order, thus effectively playing one authority off against another. That is unacceptable and we shall seek to change it. It is yet one more example of the Conservatives' local government legislation providing a blank cheque for the Secretary of State. The Bill must be almost unprecedented in giving a Minister power to amend enactments—namely, local Acts—without knowing that he intends to amend them until he decides to do so and possibly without even knowing of their existence.
The total lack of clarity was made devastatingly clear in a remarkable answer yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. It is worth calling attention to that answer today. The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister
"if he will give the titles of any local Acts which he would propose to the designate under clause 1(2)(c) of the Local Authority (Expenditure Powers) Bill."
The Under-Secretary of State replied:
"No. It will be for the local authority concerned, in the context of a particular UDG proposal, to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the existence of any provision in a local Act which in its view inhibits its use of section 137."—[Official Report, 29 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 98.]
It is remarkable that the Secretary of State should seek power to amend legislation of which he is unaware. These are serious flaws in the Bill, and we shall seek to put them right in Committee.
366
Despite all that, however, we wholeheartedly welcome the intentions of the legislation. The urban development grant system is based on experience in the United States. Like other hon. Members, I have seen the excellent results achieved by the urban development action grants programme, which President Reagan wanted to kill off when he came to office but which public outrage compelled him to reprieve, although its funding was severely cut. Although urban problems in the United States are far more serious than ours, in many parts of that country urban renewal has been carried out far more imaginatively than in this country. Magnificent examples that I have seen include the regeneration of the waterfront in Baltimore and the renewal of the old town in Portland, Maine. The Americans are especially inventive and ingenious in converting disused buildings, such as old schools and warehouses, into excellent apartment blocks. I am glad that the same practice is now being followed here in my own city of Manchester as well as in Nottingham and other parts of the country.
Mr. Murphy: It is understandable that the right hon. Gentleman should praise Local enterprise, but I notice that he has not yet, for all his examples, praised private enterprise. Would he like to do so?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall have a word to say about private enterprise in a moment, but whether it will be to the hon. Gentleman's taste will be for him to decide.
One reason for the successes of urban renewal in the United States is the readiness of local businesses and banks there to put money—matching funds—into projects which they have the good sense to realise make their localities far more attractive for improved business and further investment. I am sorry to say that similar institutions in Britain have shown far too little loyalty to their areas. They seem to have little commitment to the towns and cities that provide them with their profits and the people who work for them. Of course there are exceptions. The UDG schemes that the Secretary of State published last month list some of them. No doubt today's list will do so as well. Many local authorities have responded to the opportunities with ingenuity and imagination. Anyone who has seen the work that is being done in Leeds will vouch for that.
I wish that the Secretary of State would give us more precise information about those schemes. When he made his statement last month, he failed completely to tell the House how much new money will be put into that initiative. Indeed, he seemed anxious to obfuscate rather than to illuminate. When he replies, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give more satisfactory information about the amount of new money that is going into those schemes. Last month, the Secretary of State spoke about 4,000 jobs being created or retained by the UDG schemes. When questioned about that, he was unacceptably vague about whether 4,000 jobs really are involved and, if so, how many will be new and how many will be continuing jobs as distinct from temporary ones during construction. He failed again today to give that information. We have a right to it.
We are pleased that the Secretary of State is willing to assist UDG schemes, but his horizons seem to be restricted. I wish that he would give local authorities much wider scope for job creation. Apart from urban development grants, many local authorities—which are almost invariably Labour-controlled—are pioneering

367
creditable new initiatives that have great potential. The West Midlands county council is especially active through its economic development board and its subsidised loans scheme. Other local authorities are also playing their part. I commend with special pride the decision of Greater Manchester council to buy the Midland hotel in Manchester, thus thwarting the Government's privatisation policies and retaining that outstanding hotel, which is a unique institution in Manchester, in the public sector.
If local councils are to be resource creators rather than resource consumers, they need far greater scope. The 2p limitation that is currently imposed on section 137 expenditure is regarded by many local authorities as highly restrictive and results in the stifling of local initiative. For example, the Association of District Councils informed me in a letter yesterday:
"Inner urban area programme authorities like Leicester and Nottingham are already finding difficulty in containing their expenditure on approved schemes within the 2p rate limit, and the ADC will wish to consider … whether to seek an amendment to the Bill to deal with this situation."
The Labour party, in the campaign document that it published yesterday, reaffirmed its long-standing commitment to assist local authorities to create jobs and revive local economies. As part of that, we shall abolish—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman had better behave himself. We are discussing a serious Bill and he should not heckle in a flippant way—[Interruption.] If someone is being frivolous, he brings a grin to one's face from time to time.
We shall abolish section 137 and replace it with a power of general competence for all local authorities to carry out whatever activities are not expressely forbidden by statute.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: What projects that the GLC, for example, would like to go ahead with if it were not restricted by section 137—let alone the projects that it is using powers for at the moment—would the right hon. Gentleman approve?
Mr. Kaufman: I do not carry a list of the projects of every local authority in the country. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask that question, he should write to the GLC about it. We do not believe that it is the business of central Government to act as an interfering nanny with local government. That being so, we believe that local authorities should have a power of general competence, excluding—
Mr. King: How?
Mr. Kaufman: We shall legislate to provide it. However, we shall exclude some matters that we shall specify in statute.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Labour party nationally approve of the use of public funds to finance the administrative costs of meetings of Labour party leaders of exclusively Labour-controlled local authorities in London by Islington borough council, the GLC and between six and 10 other London boroughs? Moreover, does he envisage the new power—it seems to be a power of complete discretion—being used for political purposes with even greater abandon than now?
Mr. Kaufman: That is a matter for the local electorate and, if there is any alleged impropriety, for the district auditor. When, last year, the electorate of Islington had to
368
choose between the Social Democratic party, to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, and the Labour party, it almost completely destroyed the hon. Gentleman's party and returned mine to office.
Mr. George Cunningham: On 17 per cent. of the vote.
Mr. Kaufman: Yes; but if the hon. Gentleman's party had won on 17 per cent. of the vote, he would say that that was vindication for his party.
It may be novel for the House to hear this after four years of this Government, but my point is that it is for local authorities to make their decisions. If their decisions are disapproved of by the local electorate, that electorate has a remedy. The local electorate had that remedy in Islington and they decided to throw out the people who had taken over without any right to do so and overwhelmingly returned a Labour council.
Mr. George Cunningham: They are changing their mind now.
Mr. Kaufman: Let us see whether the hon. Gentleman is here after the general election to tell us about it.
The power of general competence that we shall include in our reform of local government will accompany the many other reforms that will strengthen local democracy following four years of the most centralist Government that the country has had in modern times. To be able to conduct the type of initiatives that we have been discussing—the Secretary of State has also discussed them—local authorities need not only legislative freedom, but money. In the end, we must return to the damaging effects of the Government's penal attempts to limit local authority expenditure.
In response to the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), the Secretary of State said today that there will never be the necessary public resources. Of course there will never be sufficient public money to provide for all the things that we should like. Nevertheless, last year the Secretary of State cut rate support grant for the partnership and programme authorities and the designated districts by 10·7 per cent. This year the reduction is even worse at 16·2 per cent. Rate support grant holdback in the past two years for those authorities totals an unacceptable £157 million. Only yesterday the Chief Secretary to the Treasury blurted out that holdback in the coming year will reach the record level of £400 million. If local authorities were not being deprived of those huge sums, their ability to generate more employment and to freshen the faces of the towns and cities for which they are responsible would be enhanced.
The analysis of urban deprivation published by the Secretary of State last month is a daunting and depressing picture of the grinding poverty that afflicts too many of our urban centres—overcrowding and loneliness, isolated pensioners and single parents, children without sufficient chance in life and high mortality rates. That poverty of the body is accompanied by poverty of the soul, by ugly and derelict buildings, waste land strewn with rubbish, meanness of circumstance and degradation of spirit. Any action that lifts up the eye and the heart, that provides better homes and a better chance of a job must be welcomed. This Bill removes some barriers to the achievement of those objectives and, for that reason, the Opposition will grant it a fair passage. But it is only a tiny

369
start. Others must take the action that will get to grips with our urban wastelands on the scale required if their problems are to be solved.
5 pm
Mr. George Cunningham: The debate, even so far, has proved the usefulness of considering the Bill in the normal way. However, that was not the original intention. Both Front Benches intended to discuss the Bill in a Second Reading Committee.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is, I am sure inadvertently, inaccurate. It was never proposed that the Bill should be discussed in a Second Reading Committee. The Labour party would not have accepted that proposal, and the Government did not make it. The Government wished to take all the stages of the Bill today, but we disagreed with that. That is why we are having the Second Reading today and why the Bill will go to a Standing Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Cunningham: I know about the alternative proposal, but I was told—I shall not name names—that the first intention was that the Bill should be taken in a Second Reading Committee. Someone must have had the idea, because I remember having to argue against it. If right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches wish to sort out whose idea it was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If the Opposition do not wish to have a Second Reading Committee, they can put a stop to it, as can almost any group of Members. I am glad to hear that the Labour party objected to the proposal to take all stages in the House today. I, too, objected strongly to that, and the debate has shown the need for taking the Bill in the normal way.
The Secretary of State said that if he went through the Bill bit by bit he would come out of the back before he got inside the front. However, the Bill is rather like Doctor Who's police box—its internal dimensions are larger than its superficial appearance. That will be found as we examine the Bill, both here and in Committee.
The Secretary of State spoke mostly about the purposes to which the Bill and accompanying legislation can usefully be put in the inner cities. I do not dissent from his general philosophy—the desirability of a major effort in the inner cities, part of which I represent, and of cooperation between the public and private sectors in that endeavour. That is all very worthwhile, but considerations arising from the Bill are more mundane and worrying than that.
May I first discuss the drafting point that I put to the Secretary of State in an intervention. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is doubt whether, but for the Bill, the combination of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 3 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963 has the effect that some local authorities fear. I do not understand how there can be much doubt about that. Section 137 says, in effect, that one cannot use that section if one has powers, for a purpose, in another piece of legislation. The giving of assistance by means of grant or by loan are not separate purposes. The purpose is the same, although they are different devices. I do not understand how it can be argued that if one has power to give assistance for one purpose, but that it must be by loan on commercial terms, that is
370
not a purpose that embraces the provision of a grant. Presumably, such thinking induced local authority legal advisers to believe that a difficulty existed.
If we accept for the moment that the difficulty exists and that such legislation is not otiose but achieves a change in the law, my next question is: does it achieve a change in the law only for the future, or does it achieve a change in the law in respect of the past? I shall not discuss the drafting point at length, because we can debate it in more detail in Committee, hut clause 1 is drafted in a cackhanded way. It states:
"The powers conferred on a local authority by any enactment to which this section applies shall not be regarded as restricting the powers".
The flavour of the words
"shall not be regarded as restricting"
suggests a declaratory provision, not a law-making provision.
In addition, the fact that no date is specified for the coming into force of the Bill, other than when it receives Royal Assent, may support my interpretation. If it is declaratory, it is by definition retrospective in effect, in that we are declaring the meaning and interpretation to be put upon words that are already on the statute book. However, a court considering that point, which until now would have gone in that direction, would examine the long title of the Bill and see that it is a Bill to "remove certain restrictions". That wording suggests that it is not declaratory but that it will change the law from the moment the Bill comes into force.
I ask the Secretary of State, and the Minister who will deal with the Bill in Committee, to ensure that someone examines the wording to see whether it is respectably drafted. I suggest that it has not been so drafted and that a judge having to interpret the wording of the Bill as it stands would make the same criticisms as I have just made. It would be easy to find an alternative way of doing this. The sensible way would be to qualify the words "any other enactment", which are the last words in section 137 (1) of the Local Government Act 1972. The real purpose of the Bill is to say that those words at the end of section 137 (1) "should not include any other enactment listed in the following subsections." That is the nature of the change, and if it were done in that way the courts would find it much easier to follow.
I am slightly confused about the effect of the Bill, because the Secretary of State, naturally, chose to speak about it in the context of the principal topical use of the provisions. I may have done my homework wrongly—I hope that I shall be corrected if I have—but I believe that section 3 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963 is a general provision. It does not always spring up only when the Secretary of State uses his powers to carry out the inner urban renewal operation about which he spoke. It states that whenever the local authority sells or lets land to a person for the purpose of erecting a building on it, it may provide loans at commercial rates to the person to whom it has sold or let it, but it cannot provide grants.
That situation can arise in circumstances entirely different from those to which the Secretary of State referred. Let us be rather far-fetched, although in the Eight of some of the things that some local authorities are doing, especially in Islington, my constituency, it is not so farfetched. Let us switch the party for the moment arid say that a Conservative local authority is selling a piece of land to the local Conservative association which has the

371
intention of building on that land a Conservative party headquarters. As I understand it, under the 1963 Act the local authority may advance, on commercial terms, money for the purpose of erecting that building—here my homework may be wrong—without the approval of the Secretary of State.
We are now saying that the local authority can not only advance money on commercial terms to the local Conservative association, but can make a grant to the local Conservative association, or a loan on soft terms, subject to all the general provisions about reasonableness, duty to its ratepayers, striking a balance and so on, that apply from the general law on local government. My point is that these provisions and the relationship between them have general significance and do not just become applicable in the context of current topical operations for inner city renewal, which is what the Secretary of State was talking about.
Mr. John Heddle: The hon. Gentleman referred to his homework. So that the House may be clear and follow his line of argument, does he agree that section 3 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963 does not refer anywhere to "commercial terms"? If I follow correctly what the hon. Gentleman was saying, he was paraphrasing subsection (4) of that section, which says:
"An advance made under this section shall carry interest at a rate not less than one quarter per cent. greater than that fixed by the Treasury".
There is no reference to commercial terms.
Mr. Cunningham: I was using those terms as a paraphrase, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but several subsections in the 1963 Act describe the terms upon which such advances can be provided. We can argue all day about whether those definitions constitute commercial terms, but they are a great deal more commercial than the provision of a grant or loan at 2 per cent. or something of that order. I prefer to continue using the phrase "commercial terms" if I may.
There is then the problem raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) about the application of the Bill not only to the 1963 Act, which is listed in it, but to any local Act which the Secretary of State chooses in future to designate. I was surprised to receive from the Minister the answer to which the right hon. Member for Ardwick referred. If it is the intention of the Government immediately to designate some local Act or Acts under the Bill, the Department of the Environment should at least list those local Acts and should be in a position to say more to those who ask questions about this than that it will be entirely up to the local authority to bring forward a local Act applying to it and ask the Secretary of State to use his power in relation to it. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to go into that more thoroughly in Committee.
More generally, this is an odd time to expand the discretion of local authorities to spend money under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. Although the Secretary of State suggested that in a way this was actually limiting discretion under section 137 by saying that in so far as some things that are good can be done under the section, and that leaves less out of a 2p rate to be spent on undesirable projects, that begs the issue whether every new use of section 137 by reason of the Bill
372
will be good in anyone's opinion. To say the least, whenever there is a suggestion that the discretion of local authorities should be expanded and restrictions should be removed, the antennae should go up, not because I should wish to restrain the discretion of local authorities in general—it has been limited too much in recent years—but because the abuse of local authorities' spending power that is taking place at the moment is so offensive, so monstrous and so widespread.
The abuse is not only in London. The characteristics that were thought to be particularly restricted to London are spreading outside London. Local authorities are now using public funds for purposes which no one in the Labour party would have tolerated or supported for an instant up to just a few years ago. When the Labour Government were in power, there was no question of removing section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there was no suggestion by the Government, of which the right hon. Member for Ardwick was a member, that local authorities should be free to spend anything that they pleased on whatever they thought was in the interests of their electorate.
It is significant that the spokesman for the Labour party on environment matters refuses to condemn, as does the leader of the Labour party, the use of public funds to finance the administrative costs of a purely Labour party series of meetings. It is unbelieveable. When one mentions this fact to old Labour party hands, who have been in local government finance for years, they fall about laughing at the very idea that it may be legal and that people have the gall to do it. Therefore, it is against the background of manifest and widespread abuse of current spending powers that we have to consider any proposal to expand those powers.
It would not be in order for me to go in great detail into the abuses that take place. I have had other opportunities to do that and I shall have further opportunities, but let us consider them in brief. At the moment in London, public funds—ratepayers' money—are being stolen to finance Labour party meetings. I refer to the so-called London Labour leaders' group, which is costing about 10 local authorities in London a small sum, approximately £2,000 each, to finance the salaries of two council officials who appear on the strength of Islington borough council, one in the secretaries department and one in the finance department and whose role will be to act as staff men to the London Labour leaders group.
This is breathtaking in its insolence. Let us imagine the Government saying that they think there should be some means by which they can consult local authorities, that this would be in the interests of the country, but that they would do it only with Conservative councillors and so they were setting up the Government—local authority consultative Conservative commission and the administrative costs would be taken half out of local authority rates and half out of national taxation. Would the Labour party sit silent? Would the Leader of the Opposition say, "That is all right by me; no objection to that; perfectly proper use of public funds and taxation and rates"? Would the right hon. Member for Ardwick sit quiet and not say a word about it? Of course not, because it would be wrong and they would say so. There is no difference between that and the financing of the London Labour leaders' group. But—and this is the most significant point in the context of the Bill—it is doubtful whether it is unlawful.

373
The provision for local authorities to spend on local government associations rests in section 143 of the Local Government Act 1972. I assure the House that I shall make this relevant to section 137. Section 143 states:
"A local authority may pay reasonable subscriptions, whether annually or otherwise, to the funds—

(a) of any association of local authorities formed (whether inside or outside the United Kingdom) for the purpose of consultation as to the common interests of those authorities and the discussion of matters relating to local government, or

(b) of any association of officers or members of local authorities which was so formed."

It does not say, "By the way, any such local authority association cannot be constructed on a political basis." Why not? Because no one ever imagined that local authorities would dare to put their hands into the public's pocket and take out money for Labour party meetings. Therefore, the statute does not specifically prohibit it.
I believe that it is, nevertheless, unlawful under the general provisions of fiduciary duties to the ratepayer and so on, and that it would be so held by a court. At the very least, there is a doubt. At this stage we do not know whether the district auditor in question will form the opinion that it is unlawful and, therefore, that the matter needs to go to a court.
That is one illustration of where our statutes are at fault, because they never anticipated that the Labour party would go as barmy as it has done and use public funds for these unlawful purposes.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: That is corrupt.
Mr. Cunningham: There are other things relevant to the Bill, such as the decision by Islington borough council to provide premises in Islington for occupation by the London Labour leaders group and to provide premises at Islington for occupation by a new free newspaper which will have an official link with the Labour party. I am not referring to the normal abuse of many local authorities of producing their own newspaper that sings a political tune. That is nothing. That is done in Islington as well. But that does not go far enough. Islington wants an allegedly independent newspaper, for whose editorial policy the council will have no responsibility, but which will support the Labour party line.
When an application for a grant to finance such a newspaper was put forward on the ground that it would create employment for about 10 people in Islington, that grant was provided. Just in the last week or two, decisions have been taken about the provision of premises in Upper street, Islington, for occupation by the staff of that newspaper. That is where the Bill comes in, because if Islington council were to sell a piece of land, on which a building were to be erected, to such a body, it would have to provide assistance on commercial terms.
Following the passing of the Bill, the council would be free to provide grants. Its power under section 137 would not be negatived by the fact that it had already sold a piece of land for such a purpose. We are dealing with a completely new dimension of abuse of public funds for political purposes.
At GLC level, we are all aware of the use of the so-called Londoner free newspaper. We also know that grants are being provided to endless numbers of organisations
374
whose purposes are, to say the least, bordering on the political and which are assisted for party political reasons rather than general policy reasons.
We are talking, not of only £1,000 or £2,000, but of hundreds of thousands of pounds, especially in London. When all that is going on, the least that should be done is to ensure that, when we expand any local authority discretion, we build a safeguard into the expanded discretion.
Unfortunately, that is all that I shall be free to propose in Committee. Because of the narrow nature of the Bill, I shall not be able to introduce a clause to prohibit political expenditure generally under section 137. That would be outside the scope of the Bill. However, I can certainly move that such a restriction should apply whenever the expanded discretion created by the Bill is employed. I shall move an amendment to achieve that purpose.
The scope of such an amendment will, however, be extremely narrow, and in practice it will probably never operate. We need a provision that prohibits the political use of public funds generally under section 137. That cannot be done by myself or any other hon. Member, nor can it be done by the Government, even as author of the Bill, because it would still be out of order. That is what irritates me intensely.
When the Department of the Environment knew that a Bill on local authority expenditure powers was to be introduced, and in view of the abuse that is now taking place, it should have said, "We will take this chance, because God knows when we will have another suitable Bill in which we can insert a clause to prohibit the misuse of funds for political reasons." That is what ought to have been done. The Government, even after today's Second Reading, should take the Bill away, stop the Easter holiday of the officials and draftsmen concerned, and get them to produce a clause that prohibits the worst abuses of the use of public funds for political purposes.
If the Bill is taken away and brought back with such a clause, we shall be in business to pass the clause on to the statute book. If the Bill remains as it is, that cannot be achieved, because of the rules of the House. However, there is always the House of Lords, but it would not be sensible to rely on the House of Lords to do so, even though it has no rules and can do more or less what it pleases.
During the last week I put that suggestion to a number of people, including the Prime Minister, and I regret to say that the answer I received just immediately before the debate began was that she thought that the job was too great to be achieved in the time available. A decision will have to be taken in the time available on my amendment to prohibit political expenditure within the confines of the expanded discretion created by the Bill. Therefore, no additional effort is needed to make up one's mind about prohibiting political expenditure in the context of the use of section 137. The Government must make up their mind whether to accept my amendement or to resist it. If there is a majority on the Committee in favour of it—which I hope—the Government will have to live with the result, and if they can do that on a narrow front, they can do so on a much broader front.
The Government have lost a great opportunity to prohibit the worst abuses that are occurring at present. With the best will in the world, they could not have introduced a Bill that cleared up the whole issue. I

375
recognise that if they were to expand the Bill to that extent it would never get through before the end of the Session. I merely ask for a modest change to be made.
In justification for the rush, I invoke some of the recent judicial decisions that have been taken, for example, about the use of council newspapers for political purposes. The Minister was kind enough to refer me to some of those cases. I refer him back, as it were, to what seems to be the conflicting cases of the Lothian Chronicle and the Greenwich Civic News, where one decision indicated that very political argumentation in a locally financed newspaper was legitimate and the other case suggested that it might not be.
We are all the time encountering the failure in the past to prohibit such political things, and I doubt whether we have succeeded in prohibiting them in past statutes. This issue cries out for legislation, and until we have that legislation we shall have Labour authorities in London—the GLC, ILEA, Islington and many others—helping themselves to the public's money for party political purposes.
It is an urgent and crying scandal and there is still an opportunity to correct it if Conservative Members will persuade the Government, after the Bill's Second Reading, to bring back the Bill in three weeks with the addition of just one clause to remove the opportunity for the worst of the abuses.
5.30 pm
Mr. John Heddle: The House always listens with great interest to the contributions made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). His knowledge of the Chamber and of the constitution is written at least into the political history of the 1970s and will be read by students of politics for many years to come.
I have some sympathy with the general argument of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Those of us who are London ratepayers and contribute to the GLC's antics must be concerned at the sheer abuse of ratepayers' money in the hands of Mr. Livingstone and his friends across the water. They have no experience of business or of balancing books, and to them prudent finance has no definition.
I must cross verbal swords with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury when he illustrates his argument by referring to section 3 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. The House will recall that the hon. Gentleman said that that Act gave local authorities the power to make grants. He used the example of a Conservative-controlled council making a grant to a Conservative club. I may not have done my homework as thoroughly as I should, and I stand to be corrected, but, having read and reread section 3 several times, I can find no reference to "grant". The phrase "advance money" is used in section 3(1), and subsection (4) states:
"An advance made under this section shall carry interest at a rate".
Subsection (5) refers to the mortgage deeds "securing an advance" and lists the conditions that should be attached to the mortgage. Nowhere in clause 3 can I find any reference to "grant".
Mr. George Cunningham: I intended to say that section 3 of the 1963 Act does not at the moment allow
376
a council to give a grant or soft loan. But, after the Bill that we are now considering is enacted, a council will be free to do so because its powers under section 137 will be liberated, not nullified, by the existence of section 3 of the 1963 Act.
Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It confirms that I did not misunderstand or misinterpret section 3. However, it seems that I misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman was saying. It appears that the hon. Gentleman's argument could be met by a qualification of section 137 to ensure that any advance, whether by way of a loan, mortgage or grant, should be strictly for non-party-political purposes. I believe that there is a way through this legislative wood but, as I am not a lawyer, I shall stand corrected if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State tells me when he replies that he is advised by his officials that a qualification of section 137 is not the appropriate route. If it is not, I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that the issue should concern us deeply.
I understand that the Bill has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to remove any doubt in law about the power of local authorities to make grants under section 137 of the 1972 Act, as amended by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Doubt arises about the relationship between that section and other local authority powers, because section 137 cannot be used for a purpose for which a specific power already exists.
The powers of local authorities under the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963 to make loans for industrial developments on their own land were extended to cover loans for the acquisition of land or buildings on any land by section 43 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I am certain that doubt arises in my right hon. Friend's mind as to whether the extended powers to make loans preclude the use of section 137 to make grants for such purposes.
The difficulty seems to arise where local authorities wish to grant aid for land acquisition and building works for projects approved for urban development grants. The House should not lose sight of that fact.
I accept that the abuses to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred will continue until the loophole is closed. However, I hope that the House will not throw out the baby with the bathwater. As my right hon. Friend said when introducing the Bill, the intention is to ensure a breath of fresh air and the introduction of realism into the inner cities, the take-off of urban renewal, the creation and refurbishment of homes, the building of factories and, most importantly, the creation of jobs.
The decay of the inner cities started when private sector capital flew to the more amenable pastures of the suburbs and new towns—areas where local authorities encouraged industries to locate themselves, to start up in business and to create jobs and wealth. Those authorities did not wish to cane commerce or industry by levying absurdly high rates on empty business premises.
Private sector capital went to the suburbs and the new towns because the Labour party, in the late 1960s, sought to nationalise land, to stifle the free market and to reduce the availability of land for industrial and commercial development by the introduction of the Land Commission Act 1967, which the incoming Conservative Government of 1970 rightly repealed. The Act was seen in three short

377
years to be impotent, to stultify development and to stifle urban renewal. The Government are now grasping and grappling with the problems of development and urban renewal with considerable success. Their predecessors having been beaten, the next Labour Government implemented the Community Land Act 1976. Again, their legislation had the same effect—no land, no new investment in the inner cities, no homes and no jobs.
Mr. Tim Sainsbury: And no hope.
Mr. Heddle: And, as my hon. Friend says, there was no hope for those who lived in the inner cities. In the words of Vera Lynn, "When will they ever learn?"
So we find in the Labour party's manifesto, which was thrust across the Table yesterday afternoon, a reference to the inner cities. We now know what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and his team think. The manifesto states:
"The decay, squalor and level of unemployment in our inner cities are a national disgrace."
Yet the right hon. Gentleman fiddled like a political Nero when he was in Government and did nothing whatever about it. it goes on:
"Labour is determined to reverse their decline. We will provide more resources, more investment and more jobs. We will act to ensure, through the policies set out in this campaign document, that people living in the inner cities have access to decent homes, health and education—and that there is proper accountability for the police."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his comments to the Bill. I am having difficulty in seeing their relevance at the moment.
Mr. Heddle: I anticipated your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to my interpretation of section 137, my remarks are relevant. I was endeavouring to say that for the inner cities to live again and for urban renewal to take place and take place quickly, the private sector, not the public sector, should be providing the money. It should not be the case that, in the words of the Labour party's campaign document,
"The decay, squalor and level of unemployment"
should be overturned by providing more resources from the taxpayer and the ratepayer. That can be achieved only by creating a mixed environment where home ownership goes in partnership with public ownership and where the private and public sectors can work in harmony for the good of the community and those who live in the inner city areas.
That is why I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, that in 1982–83 the Government have provided £350 million for urban development and derelict land grants and that in 1983–84 they propose to invest a further £423 million. That contrasts vividly with the £160 million that was provided by the right hon. Member for Ardwick before the Labour Government left office in 1979.
As a Member who represents a west midlands constituency, I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend that a further £32 million is to be invested by the public sector and that four and a half times as much will come from the private sector, particularly to revitalise and renew parts of Birmingham and Sandwell. In Birmingham, £674,000 is to be given to a company to enable it to demolish an obsolete factory and construct light industrial units for much-needed jobs in the inner
378
city. Furthermore, another company is being given £300,000 to convert and refurbish obsolete industrial buildings to provide small workshop studios and units to provide much-needed jobs in the Spencer street and Augusta street areas of Birmingham. In Sandwell, £3·4 million has been given today by the Department of the Environment to reclaim a derelict site and to build 152 low-cost homes for sale in the Dudley road west area of Tividale. The inner cities can be revitalised and renewed by the use of public money, but with private capital playing its part to provide small workshop units—the seedcorn industries of tommorrow—and opportunities for employment and self-employment in the inner cities. It is the lack of employment opportunities that has caused the inner cities to die.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick quoted from a letter sent to him by the Association of District Councils. It rightly said that the Bill raises the wider question whether local authority expenditure on urban aid schemes approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be excluded from section 137 altogether. Some inner urban area programme authorities—the right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to Leicester and Nottingham—are already finding difficulty in containing their expenditure on approved schemes within the 2p rate limit. I have no doubt that that is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will wish to debate further in Committee. However, the way through the problem—there is clearly a problem of definition here—is not by the irresponsible commitment that was made this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Ardwick—to give local authorities powers of general competence. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to define here and now at the Dispatch Box precisely what "general competence" means and how it can be enshrined in an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) should relate that to the recent activities of councils such as Greater London, Greenwich, and others in north London. He has remained remarkably silent through a small litany of some of the things that they have been doing. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can get him to say whether he supports such activities or whether he intends to maintain a becoming Trappist silence. Does my hon. Friend agree that to talk about general competence, when the whole issue has arisen because of the incompetence and political motivation outside the general responsibilities of Labour authorities, ill becomes local authorities and Labour Front Bench spokesmen who remain silent?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must do that within the ambit of the Bill.
Mr. Heddle: I am particularly grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). He inspires me to challenge again the right hon. Member for Ardwick to answer the point that not only he but the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised. The right hon. Gentleman's silence is telling.
There is a role for the local authority to act as a site assembler to enable it to bring together all the strands of the development process and to enable the private sector to provide the homes and jobs that the inner cities need.

379
However, we must bear in mind that the prospective tenants of the small workshop units in Birmingham and Sandwell will not usually have had experience of business and therefore will not necessarily be as acceptable as commercial covenants to banks, building societies and pension funds as more established operations and industries might be. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might consider with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry whether the Government could extend the small business loan guarantee scheme to enable new industries to take leases on factories and workshop units developed not necessarily by the local authority but by the private sector. The Government could protect the developer, the investor and the fund from any risk that might exist as a result of letting premises to inexperienced and first-time business men by introducing some form of covenant guarantee scheme.
Surely the way to solve the problem is more clearly to define the powers and terms of reference of the district auditor. Should not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlaw any activity by a cowboy council that is seen to be squandering the ratepayers' money on overt and blatant party political materials and activities? With that proviso I welcome the Bill.
5.48 pm
Mr. Sydney Chapman: You will be the first to remind us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Bill is narrowly drawn. It seeks to amend section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 to
"enable local authorities to provide financial assistance towards the acquisition of land, or the carrying out of building works on land, in a form other than that provided for by section 3 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963."
Unfortunately, in one sense it is not a local government miscellaneous provisions Bill. It it were, we could raise anything relating even remotely to local authorities.
The House will be aware that when the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was introduced I was one of a number of hon. Members successful in getting the Government to agree to a new clause for the licensing of sex shops. I trust that within the ambit of this Local Authority (Expenditure Powers) Bill I shall be allowed a make a brief remark about the expenditure of the Greater London council.
I am impelled to follow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) who has done the House a service by raising the matter of the total abuse by the GLC of ratepayers' money for overt party political propaganda. Although I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I fear that he is being a little too optimistic in believing that the House could necessarily define what "party political activities" means. Many people have referred to the district auditor in London certain aspects of the expenditure of ratepayers' money by the GLC on various propaganda issues. The district auditor gave the determination that the GLC was not acting outside the law.
I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will seriously consider whether a suitable clause can be added to the Bill. If it cannot be done—if I am on the Committee I shall keep an open mind—I trust that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others will be aware that, to my knowledge, many hon. Members on this side of the House, who do not hold office, wish to press the Government to
380
give a commitment to introduce in the next Session a Bill of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, whether that be this side or the other side of the general election. In a bipartisan spirit, many hon. Members will be indebted to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury for what he has said.
I agree with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who said that it was wrong for Ministers to talk solely in terms of inner city problems. The term "inner cities" is a geographic misnomer for what I believe the Government are trying to do and what previous Governments were trying to do in bringing specific help to certain geographically defined areas of the country with acute social and environmental problems.
Will the Government seriously consider dropping the phrase
"urban development and inner cities"
and finding a more specific phrase to deal with this geographic, social and environmental problem? I suggest "special priority areas". As everything must have an acronym, "SPA" would not be entirely unsuitable to draw attention to a pressing need for central and local government action.
I welcome the Bill, however narrowly defined it is, because it is yet another instance of underlining what I believe to be the key to the solution of the problems that face these special priority areas. If the Government are to have the remotest chance of being successful, it is essential to have a partnership between local authorities and the private sector. The local authorities will probably own the land that needs redeveloping or utilising, and they have the prestige and confidence of the local inhabitants to carry out the necessary works, while the private sector has the financial capability to assist local authorities and the entrepreneurial skills of developers. That is of fundamental importance.
This Bill is yet another one which underlines the fact that our local taxation system must be examined and reformed. The rating system is illogical, unfair and out of date. It is illogical, because people do not necessarily pay according to the services that they use; it is unfair for patently obvious reasons, which I need not deploy on this occasion, and it is out of date because, in any case, almost 60 per cent. of total local authority revenue comes from the Government by way of a rate support grant allocation. Until the Government tackle the iniquities of the rating system we shall never be able to do the things that could be done and urgently need doing, in a partnership between local authorities and the Government or local authorities and the private sector if our towns and cities are to become decent places in which people can live and work.
5.56 pm
Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I welcome the opportunity to return to debates involving Department of the Environment matters after a period of enforced silence. I had a reason for my silence. I regret that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) remained silent without reason when challenged on whether or not he supported and approved of the activities to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and my hon. Friends have drawn attention. The silence of the right hon. Gentleman is less excusable than mine on this subject.
I intervene briefly to welcome the intention of this Bill to remove any element of doubt associated with the

381
operation of urban development grants. The urban programme in its various forms goes back a long time. When I examine the conditions in some of our inner cities I wonder whether what has been done up to now is satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) put his finger on the weakness by saying that until now the expenditure had been made by the Government and by local government but had not brought into partnership the private sector. The partnership concept is the best and most effective way forward and is the element that has been lacking in the programme.
The urban development grant is a splendid new initiative. I will quote from a pamphlet written by the former Secretary of State for the Environment. He referred to the urban development grant as being able
"to encourage imaginative projects to come forward. No restrictions are placed on the type of project that can be submitted for grant. They can be industrial, commercial, housing, recreation, sporting schemes or a combination of any of those."
The way forward it to seek the maximum flexibility and, more importantly, the maximum involvement of private sector capital that gives not just the gearing but the variety and speed of the initiative.
The announcement made today by the Secretary of State for the Environment has brought the urban development grant to a total of £82 million of investment for the coming year but will use only £16 million of Government money. That is a tremendously effective way of getting jobs, activity and vitality back into our inner cities. In addition, it leaves us with more urban development grant to use on similar, imaginative projects in the years to come. On that point, I entirely welcome the Bill and am very much in favour of the urban development grant as an additional weapon in the armoury of initiatives that are being used so well by the Government in tackling the formidable problem of inner cities.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has done the House a service in drawing attention to the serious problem of the widespread abuse of ratepayers' funds by certain authorities on the far Left, for party political purposes. It is an abuse on which the right hon. Member for Ardwick remains curiously, and perhaps uncharacteristically, silent. He tends to go overboard when he is speaking, but this time he is going overboard by remaining silent. There is undoubtedly a serious abuse, but I am not sure that the Bill is the best means of dealing with it, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, there is the difficulty of definition. We may first need wider exposure of the funds. If there is any suggestion of those funds being used for party political purposes it might be necessary to make special publication provision and to make them the subject of a full debate, and if necessary a debate in full council. At least that would bring the issue into the open and might make it easier for the district auditor to give it his attention.
Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman said that there was some difficulty in getting at the facts. However, there are problems. Indeed, at the moment people have problems in Islington because of that council's excessive secrecy. Normally, one does not have any difficulty in getting at the facts. The difficulty lies in having the situation corrected. I accept that the words used to define "party political activity" might present a
382
problem, but it is better to accept that problem and to leave it to the courts to decide—as we usually do—than to ignore it.
Mr. Sainsbury: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about not addressing the problem. I query only whether this Bill is the right means. However, I am not sure that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the ease of getting at the facts. I have made inquiries, and there are other councils, in addition to Islington, that seem to adopt excessive secrecy in their approach to such matters.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can at least reassure the House that the problem is being given urgent attention. If the Government do not feel that the Bill is the right vehicle for taking action, I hope that they will seek an early opportunity to do something about a situation that is clearly of justified and increasing public concern.
6.2 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I wonder how the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) would feel if the Government paid for a free newspaper to be delivered to every household in Islington, Greenwich and within the GLC, spelling out exactly where the Government disagreed with those councils, listing the items that they had spent money on and calling on local ratepayers, residents, employers and employees to take effective action to stop the abuses that the Government saw in those local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman would be up in arms. He would end his silence and would campaign vigorously.
At present, local authorities—presumably using section 137—are doing just that. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) and I have seen local authority vehicles in our borough going around with anti-Government signs on them. If the right hon. Member for Ardwick went to Wellington street, SE 18 and looked at the town hall, or Peggy Middleton house, he would see a sign saying "Defend London from Heseltine". I do not know whether that is a hangover from my right hon. Friend's period at the Department of Environment or whether it refers to his new post at the Ministry of Defence. If the reverse were true and every Government building had a sign saying "protect London from Livingstone", or "protect London from Islington borough council", the right hon. Gentleman would be on his feet and would no longer be silent.
I must admit that the right hon. Member for Ardwick normally writes better than he speaks, although we saw a smile from him in the middle of his speech today, which is a rare sight. I borrowed the right hon. Gentleman's book "How to be a Minister" from a clergyman who had been given it by a parishioner who had not looked inside, but had seen the title. We know from his book that the right hon. Gentleman spent his time in government defending planning agreements. When he was a Minister I attacked him on that and tried to find out what they meant. However, we had to wait three or four years for an answer. We had to wait until he had written guidance for other aspiring Ministers, to discover that he did not know what he was doing at the time. Indeed, he did not discover what he was doing even after he had asked the person who had cooked up the idea and sold it to the Labour party.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us a preview of what any future Labour Government would do. They

383
would expand the spending powers of local authorities within what he calls their "general competence". If that ever came to pass, we would no doubt discover, four years later, that the right hon. Gentleman—who is very honest and open—did not know what he was doing. Today, he has not reacted to our invitations to give his own comments or those of his party on some of this excessive and perverted spending. I use the word "perverted" in the strict sense of spending ratepayers' money on items that are clearly not expected of local authorities, and using it in such a way as to put up the backs of many people, including Labour supporters, who would regard such spending as unjustifiable and inexcuseable.
The right hon. Gentleman is not supported by any Labour Member, because nearly every other Labour Member of Parliament cannot stomach hearing what some Labour local authorities are spending money on. They cannot defend the rate increases that Labour authorities impose on many of their poor old ratepayers—both commercial and domestic. That is at least true in London, if not in other areas of the country.
This Bill seeks to lift restrictions on local authorities. Many people would think that it was more important to impose restrictions on many of our local authorities because of the level of their spending and the purposes for which that expenditure is used. The Bill has been approved and put forward by Ministers in the same way as a Minister who is given a pair of brown socks to wear with a grey suit might then put them on without realising what was going on. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will at least try to see whether the criticisms that have been made of the Bill on both sides of the House can be remedied, either in this Bill or in another.
The element of doubt that may apply to urban development money is not anything like as important or as urgent as the large rate increases that we have seen, or the way in which local authority money is spent. I return to the views—or absence of views—of the right hon. Member for Ardwick. If a Tory GLC decided to spend £500,000 on promoting the possession of nuclear weapons against Government policy, would he regard that as being within their general competence, either under present law or under the law that we have been promised by a possible future Labour Government? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has given thought to that. If he has not done so, he has not considered his new proposed powers seriously enough. If he does not know whether it would be legal or right under present powers, I can understand why he does not want to comment on what the Labour-controlled GLC spends its money on—which is, of course, exactly the reverse.
I do not want to go into the merits of nuclear weapons, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should state their view on whether a metropolitan local authority should spend a vast amount of its ratepayers' money on such a campaign. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the way in which the GLC is spending its money on that issue? Would he be satisfied if a Conservative-controlled GLC did exactly the reverse? He has already been challenged about how he would feel if several Tory-controlled local authorities got together and gave ratepayers' money to a Conservative leaders group, using
384
premises and meeting rooms and spending money on staff to provide a back-up. Is that really the sort of thing that any right hon. Member should keep quiet about?
The right hon. Gentleman has had many opportunities to comment. Is he ashamed to comment? Does he not have a view, or does he believe that the House of Commons is not the place to give it and that it is better to wait until the Labour party conference where he can stand up and say, "I kept silent on 30 March against partisan attacks from those who do not believe that a Labour authority should spend ratepayers' money on purely party political groups."? We are waiting for an answer. It appears that we will have to go on waiting for an answer. We have a second smile from the right hon. Gentleman but absolute silence. Is it that he and other Labour Members want a packed audience of those who agree with them before they are willing to speak on these issues?
Mr. George Cunningham: I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is not expecting to reply to these points later in the debate. It would be entirely wrong for the Labour party alone to speak twice in the debate. Therefore, it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should respond immediately to these questions by means of an intervention.
Mr. Bottomley: Not only would I be willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman but I am sure that he would have the leave of the House to speak again. Sadly, no other representative of the Labour party is willing to give a view. The right hon. Gentleman is alone. The issue is apparently important. If it were not important, a growing number of Labour authorities would not be using the present powers in ways which are clearly rejected by most other Labour local authorities and by most people with common sense and a sense of fair play about how ratepayers' money should be used.
It is curious that there appears to be greater power over the political funds of trade unions—or the non-political funds of trade unions—than over the non-political funds of local authorities. I believe that the rules governing the powers of certification officers over trade unions are not strong enough. I certainly believe that the powers over the new trend in political spending of local authorities should be tightened.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to use the Bill, if they can, as an opportunity to bring more attention to the issue and to put that right, as the case has not been properly made in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill:
"The Bill is intended to clarify the purposes for which those sections may be used and no significant additional expenditure under those sections is expected to result from the Bill."
No significant expenditure was expected on party political propoganda and for party political purposes under the other provisions which govern local authority expenditure. No Labour authority believed five years ago that it would get away with half of what authorities appear to be getting away with at present.
Mr. John Cartwright: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) will know that the co-ordination of Labour local government in London is nothing new. Regular meetings have taken place between Labour leaders in London for several years. Co-ordination took place regularly when I was the chief whip of the Labour group on the London Boroughs Association. In those days the Labour party paid for it out of party funds and not out of ratepayers' money.
Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps the Labour party is running out of funds. The headquarters of the Labour party at Walworth road may sack another 25 of its staff. Will the Labour party then go to the local authority and ask for employment protection money? Will the Labour party ask the local authority to buy the headquarters building and then rent it back at a low rent, or perhaps ask for a soft loan to maintain employment? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that would be within the "general competence" of the local authority, either now or in the future?
We are beginning to see a slackening of the proper controls over local authority spending and over the purposes of that spending. As the Bill is concerned with lifting restrictions on local authority expenditure, there should be more controls on spending. I shall not spend too much time on this issue because, although it would be in order, it is slightly beyond the purposes of the Bill. Does the Minister believe it appropriate that rates in the London borough of Greenwich should increase by 30 per cent? Can he respond to those of my constituents who wish to see restrictions over such inflationary job-destroying and confidence-destroying rate increases?
I carried out a survey among small businesses in Greenwich and discovered that many of them were paying between £12 and £24 a week in rates for each employee. For rates to go up by 30 per cent. in one year with the same rate of increase expected in future years—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not certain that the Bill has anything to do with that.
Mr. Bottomley: The Bill removes some of the expenditure controls on local authorities. If the Government are putting forward the case for lifting some of the restrictions, I believe that I should be able to put forward the case for opposing some of the restrictions or should at least be able to ask whether the proposed lifting of restrictions is sensible. That is a perfectly normal Second Reading procedure.
A rates increase of 30 per cent. this year with a possible 30 per cent. increase next year to make up for the robbing of the balances and to pay for some of the continuing expenditure to cover new commitments of the London borough of Greenwich is a reasonable issue to put to my hon. Friend. If he cannot answer in this debate, I hope that he and the Government take notice of the representations, the protests and the anguish of my constituents and the ratepayers in the London borough of Greenwich.
I received a letter from a pensioner today which said that, while the pension increase was welcome, it was far outweighed by a rates increase of more than £100 a year. The right hon. Member for Ardwick quoted from the proposed Labour party programme—the emergency programme—as though it will do good for pensioners. Those pensioners are suffering because of Labour authorities in the town halls, and are already seeing the penalties of a split anti-Labour vote, having given control, even though only temporarily, to a Labour council which has moved to the Left. The right hon. Gentleman will wake people up so that more of them will vote for the party of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) or for the Conservatives. Too often people have not believed the Labour party. I hope that they now will.
I am sorry that my speech has been relatively brief but I think it would be in keeping with the mood of the House if I conclude fairly soon. I have not been able to tempt the
386
right hon. Member for Ardwick to his feet to give his views on this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) made a small mistake. Vera Lynn did not say, "When will they ever learn?". I think it was Pete Seeger who said that. I believe that most of the ratepayers of London are now beginning to learn. Regardless of who first used the words, the ratepayers will say, "We do not want Labour; we do not want extra powers for local authorities, apart from the minor provisions intended in the Bill; we want Labour to go and we want political spending stopped."
6.18 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I feel slightly inhibited about replying to the debate, because far more questions have been asked of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) than of the Government. None the less, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill. As a simple housing Minister, I shall not follow him down the intricate path of local government finance. That has always been complicated, and if some people tell me that it is less complicated now than it was, I am happy to believe them.
The Bill is needed not because of any problem for the Secretary of State but because of problems for local authorities, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised. The local authorities came to the Government after the announcement about urban development grant to express their anxieties about their powers to pay. In order to maintain the cordial relationship which we enjoy with local authorities we have decided to help them by means of the Bill.
With regard to consultation, because of the need to make swift progress, there was little time to consult the local authority associations but we did keep them fully in touch with what we were intending to do. Local authorities have been informed about what we are doing and, of course, it was the local authorities which asked us to amend the law in the first place.
The Bill does not have retrospective effect. It will have effect in the financial year in which it is enacted. If local authorities are worried about past payment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to consider sanctions under section 16l of the Local Government Act 1972 in appropriate cases.
One can only sympathise with the problems facing the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in the London borough of Islington. Et is worth pointing out that all three Islington Members have resigned from the Labour party—due, no doubt, to the activities of the Socialists on Islington council.
Specific questions have been asked about local act powers. We cannot anticipate what provisions in local acts might obstruct section 137 and the paying out of money for urban development grants. We have a long list of local authority acts that contain powers to assist industry, but it would not be practical to list them all, because we might leave some out. That is why we need clause 1(2)(c), which gives power to the Secretary of State to designate enactments within local acts. Clause 1(3) enables the Secretary of State to apply the clause to the enactment
"only to such extent as is specified in the order."
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned the possibility of a Labour council in Islington, with the connivance of a Labour Government, giving

387
money to support a Labour club. The sale of land to a party political organisation by a local authority could not be financially assisted under section 137. It is doubtful whether such assistance would be properly for the benefit of local authorities and all or some of their inhabitants. The district auditor would investigate such expenditure very quickly.
I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends, who have welcomed the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) asked me to follow up certain points with the Secretary of State for Industry, which I shall do. He asked me about the district auditor. There are powers for the district auditor to conduct an extraordinary audit. There was an Adjournment debate on that matter, in the context of Islington, a few days ago. Various items of expenditure have been referred to the district auditor, some by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The Government are considering the case for an extraordinary audit of Islington in the light of information that has been made available to us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) supported the case for a review of the laws on political activity. He also asked the Government to take on board the problems of areas that were not necessarily inner city areas. Any local authority can apply for an urban development grant. The Government are currently reviewing regional and inner city policies, with a view to ensuring that they complement each other and that there is consistency and coherence.
It was a pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) speaking once again on environmental matters. He asked how one defined political activity. Political parties are not referred to in local government legislation. There are problems in defining political activity because, in a sense, anything done by a local authority that is controlled by politicians is likely to be political. That is one of the problems with the suggestion to tack on to the Bill a slightly broader clause to inhibit certain expenditure under section 137.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) has to put up with a Left-wing council in Greenwich that has harrassed people who want to exercise the right to buy. Were Livingstone ever to become a Minister, he would have no hesitation in using taxpayers' money to finance propaganda with the same profligacy that he currently uses ratepayers' money in London.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The GLC is spending money on the campaign against nuclear weapons. Parliamentary election expenditure is strictly controlled, yet £500,000 is being spent to support what appears to be one of the four legs of the three-legged stool of the Labour party. That must be stopped. Labour party money is being spent in an attempt to have its own people elected by converting people to its views.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend raises two points—whether such expenditure is legal and, if it is legal, whether it should be so. The first point is for the district auditor, not the Government. The second point raises broader issues about which I shall say something later.
I do not think that anyone wishes to impede the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has written to me supporting a scheme for urban
388
development grants in his constituency. All hon. Members who have spoken have been anxious to see the UDG scheme get off the ground. It would be unacceptable for the introduction of a major Government initiative to be endangered by what are essentially technical legal doubts about the scope of section 137.
Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West, felt that the Bill should have gone wider. We will take on board what they have said today. Broader issues have been raised about the activity of some Labour authorities, especially in London, which we shall wish to look at a great deal more closely.
In saying that, I repeat the promise made last year during the debates on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We made it quite clear then that we would want to keep a close eye on the use authorities made of their new powers and see how appropriate they were in a rapidly evolving situation. Section 137 has always been a widely drawn power; the great diversity of projects funded by it—not just in industry and commerce—demonstrates fully the value in which it is held by local government.
I share the concern that has been heightened by the activities of the GLC and Islington. That has led to calls for restrictions on section 137. But we must not lose sight of the original reasons why we accepted the need for flexibility. Many of the schemes that are undertaken using section 137 powers have the direct financial backing of Government—whether in the main urban programme or by way of UDG, and they cover a wide range of projects. We reaffirmed our view last year, following extensive consultations and discussions in this House and in another place, that authorities do have a legitmate role to play in assisting economic development, especially in helping to encourage small local firms which cannot always take full advantage of the regional incentives offered by Government. We were helped in reaching that conclusion because it was clear from the consultation exercise that local government, for the most part, agreed that its activities should be complementary to those of central Government, and not in opposition to them.
Whether the fact that that freedom has been abused should lead to a general restriction on section 137, is not the matter before the House today. If that was tacked on to the Bill, it would only impede its progress and arrest the implementation of urban development grants. I do not think that any hon. Member wishes that to happen.
Our immediate aim in tabling the Bill is to ensure that no doubts remain about the introduction of urban development grant. The creation and retention of jobs, especially in the construction industry, is one of the key benefits which my right hon. Friend had in mind in approving UDG projects. The 41 projects he has already announced could bring up to 1,000 immediate construction jobs and could retain or create 2,800 permanent jobs in the longer term. Insofar as the Bill enables some of those projects to go ahead which might have been held up it will certainly help employment.
Some hon. Members have rightly pointed out that the Bill marginally widens the scope for local authorities' own programmes of economic development. There is however, nothing objectionable about the use of section 137 to provide, for example, grants for industrial property development by the private sector where a local authority judges that to be in the best interests of its area. I regard

389
that as no more than the legitimate exercise of local direction. That is the sort of project that needs the Bill for it to proceed.
Let me repeat that the Bill is not a general invitation to increase expenditure. Financial assistance is subject, first, and as before, to the 2p rate product limit, secondly, to capital expenditure controls and, thirdly, to the constraints imposed by rate support grant. We have no intention of increasing capital expenditure allocations for that purpose or of increasing the aggregate amount of block grant available for local government.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick asked me for details of the schemes that had been approved, and the contributions from the private and public sectors. I shall write to him on those matters.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will now appreciate the limited intention of the Bill and, at that same time, the importance of its receiving a speedy passage through the House. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to safeguard the future of the UDG scheme, which has been so widely welcomed in the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
6.29 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): I undertook to say a few words on this matter.
When I introduced the Bill in Committee I said that its main purpose was to provide a simple procedure for the registration of pleasure craft. The registration of pleasure craft may appear to be a relatively minor problem, but, because of the increasing number of boat owners and the inadequacy of existing legislation, it requires an early solution. I believe that we have found that solution by setting up a small ships register for boats under 24m in length. The register will provide a quick, simple and, we trust, well-run service.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) raised a number of important points in Committee, and I believe that I gave him an assurance on each of them.
With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House.
6.30 pm
Mr. K. J. Woolmer: I am most grateful to the Minister for the assurances that he gave in Committee on the various points that I raised. I am glad that he acknowledged their importance.
It is a pity that the Bill does not deal with other matters connected with merchant shipping. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will have an opportunity later this evening to raise the wider matters about which the industry is rightly concerned.
I acknowledge the importance of getting the Bill through quickly, and on behalf of the Opposition, in view of the assurances that I received, I am happy to see it pass.
6.31 pm
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Clause 8 says:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the provisions of this Act and regulations under it shall extend"
to certain other groups. To which of those groups—the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, any colony, and so on—does the Minister propose to extend the regulations? In particular, has he any proposals to extend the provisions of the Act as it will become and the regulations to Hong Kong?
Mr. Sproat: Not at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

International Transport Conventions Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Queen's consent having been signified—
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  RATING AND VALUATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1983, dated 8th March 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Question agreed to.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Question agreed to.

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1983, dated 11th March 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
  That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1983, dated 10th March 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1983, dated 11th March 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1983, dated 10th March 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved. —[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Question agreed to.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1983, dated 8th March 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Question agreed to.

Standing Orders (Revision)
6.34 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of theHouse of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the repeals of, and Amendments to, the Standing Orders of this House relating to Public Business, and the new Standing Orders, recommended by the Select Committee on Standing orders (Revision) in their Report and stated in the Appendix thereto, be made, subject to the following modification, namely, in Standing Order No. 65 (Procedure in standing committees), paragraph (3), line 11, after `committee' insert 'or to a motion relating to a document referred to a committee under paragrapy (4) of Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community documents)', and to the following omissions, namely, the recommended Amendment to Standing Order No. 24 (Order in debate), paragraph (2), at the end to add and no salary shall be payable to such Member in respect of such period of suspension', and the recommended Amendments to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 86A (Select Committees related to Government departments).
It is, I believe, of particular importance that the procedures of this House are contained in Standing Orders which are as clear, consistent, and up-to-date as possible.
It is for this purpose that from time to time a Select Committee of the House is established to tidy up our Standing Orders. This requires the renewal of out-dated references, ensuring that drafting and phraseology do not differ from one Standing Order to another; and providing that structure and order follow as logical a pattern as possible.
The last time this was done was by a Select Committee set up in 1970. The report with which the present motion is concerned is that of the Committee appointed in December last year. Its formal terms of reference were
"To consider and report upon the re-arrangement and redrafting of the Standing Orders so as to bring them into conformity with existing practice".
I should like to take this opportunity to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and the members of his Committee for the thoughtful care that they have clearly taken in performing this task and the valuable contribution that they have thus made to our proceedings here. As the House will have noted, the Committee has made a considerable number—263 in all—of proposed drafting changes.
The overwhelming proportion of these changes, as detailed in the schedule to the report, are entirely of a minor drafting kind. Some renumbering and rearrangement is recommended. A considerable number of amendments are proposed to ensure consistency of phrasing: for example, using "at least" rather than "not less than"; and the standardising on the use of "Committee" as a singular. It is proposed that some outdated references should be removed. Finally, the embodiment in Standing Orders is proposed of a resolution of the House concerning the publication of evidence taken by a Select Committee in public, but not yet formally reported to the House. The combined procedural expertise of the hon. Members who served on this Committee is formidable indeed. I see no reason to question the Committee's assurances that their proposed amendments do not affect current procedural practice in any way. I warmly recommend their adoption to the House.
The Committee has, however, drawn to the attention of the House a small number of its recommendations that contain an element of substance as well as of drafting amendment. I refer to paragraphs 13 to 19 of the report. I wish,however, to draw to the attention of the House only
394
two of these recommendations. The rest seemed to me—as I hope they will to the House—essentially uncontroversial alterations.
The first—paragraph 14 of the report—proposes that Members suspended from the House for disorderly conduct should
"forfeit their salary during their suspension".
The Committee sees this as a clarification of the purpose of Standing Order No. 24, in that, in so far as this Standing Order sets out to punish art offending Member, it fails to impose what the Committee regards as the most obvious sanction which should accompany the exclusion of a Member from the precincts of the House.
There may be some argument as to how far such a proposal lies strictly within the terms of a revision of Standing Orders. However, in this connection, I take note of the Committee's comments on its procedural competence, detailed in paragraph 13 of the report. In any case, what I do know is that this would obviously he a most important change. It could, I suggest, also be sharply controversial not least because a suspended Member still has constituency responsibilities to discharge, whether or not he may be admitted to the Chamber. Thus, I do not feel that this procedural side wind would be appropriate for such an innovation. I am fortified in this view by the fact that the Committee itself divided on the recommendation which was included in the report only by a vote of three to two. I propose, therefore, that in the context of this report at least, this recommendation should be rejected. The motion now before the House would provide accordingly.
The other recommendation to which I would draw the attention of the House is that contained in paragraph 18 of the report. This concerns Standing Order No. 86A(5). At present, this sub-paragraph would enable a Sub-Committee on the nationalised industries to be formed from members of the relevant departmental Select Committees, but makes no provision as to which of the departmental Select Committees the sub-Commiitee should report to. It has hitherto been inoperative. The proposal made in the report is that the Committee should become a Sub-Committee of whichever departmental Select Committee its chairman is a member of.
I think, however, that it is for consideration whether this matter affecting Select Committee organisation would most appropriately be dealt with in this way. The recommendation is contrary to a recent recommendation by the Liaison Committee of Select Committee Chairmen,

395
to which I shall be replying shortly, and it is relevant to the consideration of the Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill now before the House. I accordingly suggest that this proposal should be merely noted, but that no decision should be taken this evening.
The House will appreciate that I am in no sense prejudging whether a nationalised industries Sub-Committee should be formed along the lines suggested; I am merely observing the contrary views that have been expressed by the Liaison Committee and the relevance to the decision on the outcome of the Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill which has yet to pass into law. I do not believe that this evening is the appropriate occasion for a decision.
The motion also provides for one other modification to the Committee's proposals. Recommendation 45 in the Committee's report proposes an amendment to Standing Order No. 65—page 19 of the report. It recommends that that order should cover not only notices of amendments to Bills, as it already does, but amendments to motions before Standing Committees on European Community documents. The recommendation speaks of motions which have been referred to such Standing Committees, but in fact it is not the motions which are referred but the documents themselves. The modification provided for in the motion will make it clear that the amendments referred to are amendments to motions relating to documents which have been referred. This amendment has been agreed with the Chairman of the Committee. That passage convinces me how wise it is not to have a written constitution. Subject, however, to the two exceptions to which I have referred, and this minor modification, I commend the remaining recommendations in this report to the House.
It only remains, therefore, for me to express again considerable gratitude on behalf of the House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South and his Committee for the painstaking and thorough way in which they have carried out this revision.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
6.41 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move as an amendment to the proposed motion, in line 8, leave out from 'namely' to 'the' in line 10.
The reason for the recommendation that appears at the top of part II of the Committee's report—which concerned amendments with an element of substance, which found favour with the majority of the Committee—is that, frankly, when, for defiance of the Chair, a Member is named, far from there being any effecive disadvantage to the Member concerned, there is considerable income from media interviews, the Member is spared from having to attend the House and vote, from having to attend any Select Committee or Standing Committee and from being in the precincts at all, save if the Member is a member of a private Bill Committee, in which case he has to carry out his duties.
I want to make it clear, because there may be confusion among some hon. Members, that that recommendation does not refer to occasions when a Member is ordered by the Chair to withdraw for disorderly conduct. It applies
396
only to proceedings under Standing Order No. 24. In those proceedings a Member is named by Mr. Speaker. It is not to be confused with Standing Order No. 23 when Mr. Speaker or the Chairman orders a Member or Members to withdraw if their conduct is grossly disorderly.
Therefore, it is only for the most serious offences committed in the presence of the House, for which a Member is named, to which that sanction applies. It is wise to remember that that is done not just on the initiative of the occupant of the Chair, although that is what starts the proceedings. The Question is put to the House. It is the House itself that decides whether the Member or Members should or should not be ordered to withdraw. It is therefore a decision by the House of Commons, not an arbitrary imposition by the occupant of the Chair.
I hazard a guess that 99 per cent. of the public would be astonished to hear that a Member who is named and suspended from the service of the House does not lose his salary for the period of his suspension. Even some members of the Lobby, to my knowledge, were astonished to find that that was so, as reason and a sense of justice, apart from the requirements of good order, suggest that if a Member is suspended from the service of the House, he should not receive a salary for his full service of the House during that period of suspension.
It is not proposed by the Select Committee charged with the duty of revising the Standing Orders that secretarial or other allowances should cease during that period because there are some functions that a suspended Member still performs. It is merely proposed that a Member's salary, which is paid for his full and proper service of the House, is suspended during the period of his compulsory suspension.
I need say no more than that. The amendment is necessary only because, exceptionally, the Government have not chosen to include that provision within their omnibus recommendation that the House should endorse the recommendations of the Select Committee.
6.47 pm
Mr. Charles R. Morris: I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I shall comment on the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). In so doing, I join the Leader of the House in expressing the Opposition's appreciation for the work that was done by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and his colleagues in the revision of the Standing Orders. As we all recognise, Standing Orders create the framework for orderly debate.
No one wishes to encourage disorderly behaviour in debates in the House. One does not want to encourage the challenging of the Chair by any Member from either side of the House. However, I draw the House's attention to a point that was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton when he moved his amendment. He suggested that, as a form of sanction on and punishment of a Member who is named for disorderly conduct and then suspended from presence in the House, the Member should lose his salary for the period of his suspension. That sounds reasonable until one starts to work out what it means in salary terms. Assuming that the Member is suspended for five days, will 5/365 of his annual salary be withdrawn? Is the annual salary related to a daily salary? If a Member's salary is to

397
be withdrawn for disorderly conduct, will those who voluntarily suspend themselves from attendance at the House lose a daily salary?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No such proposition has been made by me. Such a Member is not prevented from coming here and voting, nor is he relieved of the obligation to attend Committees of the House on which he has been appointed to serve.
Mr. Morris: I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
If it is argued that a Member who is suspended ought to lose a daily part of his annual salary, it is assumed that the salary is based on a daily entitlement. Is it or is it not? I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. If we accept that the salary of a Member of the House is on a daily entitlement, we move into a difficult area. The amendment should be rejected at this stage and considered later in greater depth. As the Leader of the House said, the recommendation was carried in Committee by only three votes to two. It requires deeper and more thoughtful consideration.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As the right hon. Gentleman seems to attach great importance to this point. I should draw his attention to the fact that entitlement to pension for a Member is calculated on the basis of a 365-day year. That was the recommendation of one of the salary review bodies, and it was accepted by the House. Therefore, it is in no way anomalous or innovative that the daily salary should be calculated for this purpose by dividing the annual salary by 365 in exactly the same way as a Member's pension is calculated, with the approval of the House.
Mr. Morris: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is putting, but the pension entitlement is related to the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The scheme for Members is analogous to the Civil Service pension scheme. A Member's pension is calculated on a completely different basis from his salary. If it is argued that the salary is paid on the basis of a daily sum, it automatically provokes the question whether the daily portion of the salary is the entitlement for a day's attendance. If a Member is suspended for, say, five days and it is laid down that, because he or she has been suspended, he or she should lose five days' pay, can it not equally be argued that if a person attends on five days he is entitled to five days' salary?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think the right hon. Gentleman's memory has let him down. The pension scheme was based on complete years, and Members were credited only with complete years. It had nothing to do with the Civil Service. On the recommendation of the salary review body, a change was made to take account of years served, plus days in an incomplete year, for which the year's entitlement was to divided by 365. No one is arguing in support of the amendment anything other than the bare proposition. Nobody is arguing that if a Member is ill or absent, he should lose any salary. That would be a different matter. If someone wanted to put forward such a recommendation he could do so, but that is not the recommendation made by the Select Committee charged with revising Standing Orders; neither is it the recommendation in the amendment, which is confined solely to the disciplinary case where a Member who has been in defiance of the Chair is named.
Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has made. I assure him that my memory is not at fault. I served in the Civil Service Department, and my mind is scarred by that experience. I have not misinterpreted the position of the Members' pension scheme in regard to the principal Civil Service pension scheme. I say—and I am open to correction—that the Members' pension scheme is based on the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The salary that Members receive is not related to the Civil Service as such. That is a fact of life. If a day's pay is to be regarded as 1/365th of annual salary, a precedent will be established and it may be used in different ways.
The Leader of the House said that, despite suspension, a Member continues to carry the constituency commitments involved in his or her representative position as a Member of the House. That is another aspect of the withdrawal or suspension of salary which will have to be given serious consideration. The House should accept the argument advanced by the Leader of the House and reject the amendment, which should be taken back for deeper and more thoughtful consideration.
6.56 pm
Mr. Peter Thomas: As Chairman of the Select Committee whose report is before the House, I thank my right hon. Friend, the Lord President, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) for their kind remarks about the Committee and also for the welcome that they have both given to over 99 per cent. of the Committee's recommendations.
To serve on a Select Committee dealing with the revision of Standing Orders does not appear on the face of it to be a thrilling part of parliamentary activity. In the event, our deliberations were conducted in a lively and invigorating way. I am grateful to those Members who attended for their industry, enthusiasm and contributions. Perhaps I may single out the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who was determined to see that all the wording we used in our amendments was both grammatical and stylistic. He was successful. What we have produced is the fruit of his efforts.
It is 12 years since the House accepted that there should be changes in Standing Orders. During those 12 years great change has taken place. It was opportune that a Committee should be set up to consider what amendments and changes were needed. We have proposed 263 changes. Apart from the small drafting amendment to our recommendation on Standing Order No. 65, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend and which I accept and welcome, 261 of our changes appear to be acceptable, as I understand from the speeches that we have just heard. That is not a bad track record for a Select Committee.
I do not propose to speak at length, nor do I intend to go into detail on the amendments. Any changes of a substantive nature that we have proposed—in particular, changes which to some extent may have been outside our terms of reference—have been put in a separate appendix. We did that for the convenience of the House, so that these matters could be brought clearly to its notice.
I wish to say something about the two amendments referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, especially the one referred to by the right hon.

399
Member for Openshaw. In both cases the Committee sought to bring the drafting of the Standing Order into conformity with its intention.
I shall deal first with the amendment to paragraph (5) of Standing Order 86A relating to a Sub-Committee on nationalised industries being set up from time to time. The Standing Order, as drafted, proved unworkable, and the Liaison Committee recommended its repeal. The Select Committee also considered whether to make that recommendation, but we felt that it was the clear intention of the House that there should be such a Sub-Committee. Therefore, we have proposed improved drafting to allow the Sub-Committee to operate, if that were thought desirable.
I listened with care to my right hon. Friend's comments on this amendment. For the reasons that he gave, I accept that the proposal should be merely noted today, as it would not be an appropriate occasion for a decision to be taken.
Probably the main proposal in today's debate is the amendment to Standing Order No. 24 relating to suspension from the House for disorderly conduct in defiance of the Chair. With one exception, such suspension involves withdrawal from the precincts of the House. The amendment proposes that Members who are suspended should forfeit their salaries during the period of suspension.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that that would be an important and sharply controversial change. There was considerable division about it in the Select Committee and, as my right hon. Friend said, the recommendation was included in the report by three votes to two, two members of the Committee being absent.
Standing Order No. 24 dates back to an order passed in 1880—well before the payment of salaries to Members, which began in 1911. The intention of the Standing Order was clearly punitive, and the purpose behind the amendment was to implement fully that punitive intention. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend and with the right hon. Member for Openshaw that it is such a far-reaching, controversial and arguable amendment that it would be inappropriate for the House to accept it today. At a later date—perhaps in a review of the powers of the Chair—it might be considered again. Speaking personally, however, as of course I must, I accept my right hon. Friend's motion and commend it to the House.
7.3 pm
Mr. George Cunningham: I wish to speak briefly to three of the more controversial recommendations in the report. First, however, I express our gratitude here, as we have done elsewhere, to the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) who chaired the Select Committee and also to the Clerk of the House for the enormous assistance that he and the Clerk to the Select Committee gave us in the conduct of our proceedings.
On withdrawal of salary, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) put forward technical objections to the imposition of sanctions of this kind on Members who had been suspended. My objection is one of substance. Unless there is widespread abuse I do not believe that it is proper for the House to exercise this or any other form of discipline over its Members. We should be extremely reluctant to allow other Members to
400
discipline a Member. A Member is answerable to his constituents, and whatever penalties need to be visited upon him should be visited upon him by his constituents. We should go beyond that only when there is such severe and widespread abuse of our procedures as to make our proceedings impossible or difficult. On that basis of substance, I believe that it would be wrong for us to impose the additional sanction of withdrawal of salary on a Member who has been suspended.
On the nationalised industries Committee, I am afraid that in my view not only is the present situation unsatisfactory but the recommendation in our report is also unsatisfactory. In 1978, when the big Procedure Committee recommended a new family of Select Committees, we recommended that there should continue to be the possibility of a nationalised industries Committee of some sort—I shall call it a Committee for the moment—to study those matters that were common to two or more nationalised industries. We envisaged that the membership of that Committee would be drawn from the subject Committees involved in the issue that the nationalised industries Committee was to study.
I was a Member of the Procedure Committee in 1978, but I do not recollect our ever addressing our minds to the problems arising from the fact that the nationalised industries Committee would be a Sub-Committee and not a full Committee. Had we been aware of the problem that that created, I am sure that we should have recommended that there should be a full nationalised industries Committee which, unlike the old nationalised industries Committee, would not be a Committee in its own right with separate membership and its own subject but a potential Committee to be called into existence from time to time as the need arose, with its membership drawn from the subject Committees. The advantage of that would be that such a full Committee could report direct to the House.
As the House will have gathered, I do not agree with the recommendation in our report, for this reason. We have given the proposed nationalised industries Sub-Committee an artificial daddy because the poor little thing had no daddy of its own. We did that to allow the Sub-Committee to report, through its artificial daddy, to the House. To find a means of defining the daddy, we decided to give the Sub-Committee to the member of the family of subject Committees to which the Chairman of the nationalised industries Sub-Committee happened to belong. That could involve serious problems, as the Sub-Committee might produce a report that did not have the support of the artificial daddy, although it might have the support of a number of the other subject Committees.
Therefore, I believe that there should be a potential nationalised industries Committee which can be called into being as needed but that it should be a full Committee made up from Members drawn from the other subject Committees but, like any full Committee, free to report to the House without its report having to be approved by any other Committee.
My third point of substance apparently causes concern to no one but me, and I regret that. The report recommends—and the Government recommend that we accept the recommendation—that when the House of Lords makes a proposal initiating expenditure it will automatically be ruled out when it comes to this House, and not be capable of being adopted by this House unless

401
it is covered by a money resolution from the Government. That is perceived as a means of retaining Commons power as against House of Lords power.
More important is the fact that it is also a means of retaining Government power against House power, because if the House of Lords initiates such a proposal for expenditure which gains the Government's support in the Commons with a money resolution, we overlook the fact that it has been initiated by the Lords. However, if it has been initiated in the Lords and five-sixths of the House wants it but the Government do not, there will not even be a possibility of a Division on it in this House. Therefore, we are not primarily removing a right of the House of Lords against this House but a right of non-ministerial Members of Parliament as compared with the Government. I am always opposed to that. It is a pity that we are doing it.
When my grandchildren ask me, "What did you do as a result of your X years in the House?", I may refer to one or two other things but I shall conclude by pulling a copy of Standing Orders off the shelf and saying, "Here is an old copy of Standing Orders which used to refer to `less' than 20 hon. Members when it ought to say 'fewer' than 20 hon. Members, and which used to say if a Committee `are' satisfied when they should have said if the Committee `is' satisfied.". Those two beautiful removals of irritation are worth several years of parliamentary life.
7.11 pm
Mr. David Crouch: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for bringing this important report to the House for debate so soon after its publication. We often wait a long time for Select Committee reports to be debated. All credit should go where credit is due.
I should also like to add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) on his speech today and for the report to which he and the members of the Committee have obviously given so much thought. Looking into Standing Orders is no small matter. It is a truism to say that they are the rules under which we operate our system of parliamentary democracy, through everything that we do in the House and its Committees.
I should like to comment on two recommendations that the Government have not accepted. I can understand why. I shall deal first with Standing Order No. 86(A) on the Sub-Committee on nationalised industries. It is a pity that the recommendation has not been accepted. I served on the old Select Committee on nationalised industries for eight years. For the three years during which we have had the new Select Committees, I have noticed the obvious omission of a separate Select Committee for nationalised industries. A Sub-Committee would be a step in the right direction towards filling the gap and satisfying the need for detailed study of the nationalised industries such as only a Select Committee can give.
The nationalised industries are now tending to wander rather lonely in the scheme of things without regular examination by Parliament through a Select Committee. I can understand my right hon. Friend's views on that subject, but I hope that he will note that there is a feeling in the House that the nationalised industries deserve and require more constant study by the House through its Select Committees.
402
The other recommendation with which I should like to deal concerns Standing Order No. 24. I listened to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and I note seriously his point that hon. Members should not try to punish an hon. Member. That step has been described as dramatic, should the House agree to it. Whenever we hear such comments, we shrink from taking such decisions. However, I am sorry that we have shrunk from that one as it is in accord with the proper responsibilities of the House regarding the behaviour of hon. Members and the authority of the Chair.
If we are afraid to take measures to support the authority of the Chair, we should re-examine ourselves. The Committee has examined the subject and has been worried that, at times, the authority of the Chair has been challenged. We can always challenge that authority in an official way by tabling a motion, seeking a debate or referring the matter to a Procedure Committee. There are many ways in which we can reform ourselves but we always maintain that the authority of the Chair is supreme in the Chamber.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not the hon. Gentleman confusing two things? We all agree about the authority of the Chair, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that authority is significantly diminished because there is no financial penalty? Surely the real sanction is not only being named but being excluded from the privilege of sitting in this place, even for one day. Is that not representative of the authority of the Chair? Indeed, might not—I put it no higher—the addition of a financial penalty demean and reduce that significant sanction?
Mr. Crouch: That is an extremely good point, but it takes nothing from my argument. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. For an hon. Member to be named by the Chair and suspended from the Chamber and the precincts of the House is a significant punishment. However, I should have thought that suspension carrying the sanction of losing one's pay during suspension would accord with the spirit of the times.
We are trying to establish better discipline in industry and say that people who are suspended because they cannot observe the rules should also lose pay. Surely we should be prepared to accept that discipline as well.
It is recognised in the House—indeed, the House has decided in its Standing Orders—that the authority of the Chair is supreme. We may not challenge that authority, and if our behaviour is disorderly we are deemed to be out of order and can therefore be ordered out of the Chamber. I should have thought that it would be good for lion. Members to accept an additional punishment.
We are not so much debating whether hon. Members should decide to impose a punishment or a sanction on other hon. Members as showing that we are prepared to accept a sanction that might apply to us. I am not invoking a punishment on other hon. Members. We can all be disorderly, named and ordered out of the Chamber. It is sometimes almost proper, when debate is spirited, to determine that one will fall foul of the Chair. I have done so, and I doubt whether there is an hon. Member here tonight who has not ruffled the Chair a little—some more so than others.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: You speak for yourself.
Mr. Crouch: Some more so than others, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman can always beg for mercy.
Mr. Crouch: I am not begging for mercy, I am simply saying that this is a good recommendation. It is a pity that we shrink from it. I understand that we may have to delay the decision, but we should not delay it forever. We must face the fact that in recent years the House has been subject to much stronger criticism from outside for what appears to be disorderly conduct as a result of the broadcasting of Parliament. The public tend to hear those periods—15 minutes twice a week—that are noisier than the other eight hours of each day that we work. The feeling is growing up that the House is not the place of order that it should be. It has never been a very orderly place and has had to be controlled by the Chair for many hundreds of years. We respect the Chair for that reason. This small additional sanction would have shown that hon. Members collectively were prepared to take their punishment if they transgressed the rules of the House.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take those thoughts on board and will understand that we do not dismiss the idea readily.
7.21 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), for reasons that I shall make clear in a moment.
This debate is significant because Standing Orders generally work so well that we take them for granted. The Leader of the House mentioned a written or unwritten constitution, but Standing Orders are part of the effective constitution of Britain. They are the part that is, to some extent, written down, like the Representation of the People Act 1983 and other documents—unfortunately, including the treaty of Rome—which affect our constitution.
Standing Orders are the ball-bearings on which the parliamentary wheel works. The entire public life of Britain depends on that wheel turning, without its spokes being destroyed. If the ball-bearings are not in good order and are not lubricated, as the Committee has done for our benefit, or if they become rusty and inefficient, the effects are out of all proportion to the modest size of the book.
We owe some thanks to the Select Committee on Standing Orders (Revision), but I must add a small caveat about its proceedings. Its terms of reference were
"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."
The recommendation about pay and suspension was an innovatory suggestion, but—I choose my words carefully—I am surprised that consideration of any such proposition was strictly in order for that Committee. It is interesting to note that much of tonight's debate has been not on the many relatively minor changes to Standing Orders but on pay and suspension. It is not strictly appropriate for the Committee to have reported on it, so I shall not discuss it tonight. If the amendment is not carried, perhaps we should try to deal with the matter on another occasion. This is not the right time to debate the matter, still less to decide it.
As to the practical effects of the motion in the name of the Leader of the House, line 4 states that the amendments
404
shall "be made". Therefore, once the motion is carried, with or without the amendment, from tomorrow there will be no Standing Order No. 9. It will be goodbye to Standing Order No. 9; hello to Standing Order No. 10. I am not sure whether that would be wise. I know that there is no likelihood of points of order tomorrow, but there may be some when we meet again on Monday week.
Has the Leader of the House considered when the amendments should come into effect? A new term, if we can call it that, might be the right time. A new Session might be more appropriate, and a new Parliament might be even more convenient. There are other considerations. I understand that "Erskine May" is to be republished, and it may need textual amendments. However, it would be difficult for the House to take on board an entirely new set of Standing Orders. They could hardly be reprinted by Monday week. I do not know whether the Leader of the House has considered this, but the House may be able to agree that the coming into force of the new Standing Orders should be postponed.
The table of comparison at the end of the document was of less help than I had wished, because, although the new renumbering of Standing Orders is contained there, it does not refer to the existing Standing Orders. Perhaps if we have another revision in 10 years, we can ensure that that is done. It might even be possible, when the new Standing Orders are printed, to have in brackets the numbers of the old Standing Orders. I mention this because those in the Clerk's Department—we should be grateful for their assistance to the Select Committee and the Clerk of the House was a witness—carry many matters in their heads, especially the numbers of Standing Orders. If they must do that, what can hon. Members do?
I understand from the table that new Standing Order No. 10 will replace the well-known Standing Order No. 9, but in the table of amendments Standing Order No. 9 is referred to as recommended Standing Order No. 11. I may have misunderstood the matter, and I would have drawn it to the attention of the Table Office informally had I not just happened to notice it a few moments ago. However, it reinforces my point about when the new Standing Orders should become effective.
There is a belief outside the House that our procedures are archaic and long-winded, that we have Standing Orders to prevent things happening, and that they are innately conservative. That is not correct. Standing Orders are constantly being revised through Procedure (Finance) Select Committee recommendations and through textual revisions, such as those before us today. They are referred to rarely because they have been honed through time and are very practical. I put it to those who examine our procedures that Standing Orders provide the least inconvenient way of dealing properly with business, consistent with the rights and privileges of hon. Members and the constituents they serve.
7.28 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On page 32 of the report there has been an alteration in the wording in accordance with the terms of reference of the Committee. Recommendation No. 121 states:
"Any Member intending to propose that certain Members be members of a select committee, or be discharged from a select committee, shall give notice of the names of the Members whom he intends so to propose, shall endeavour to ascertain previously

405
whether each such Member will give his attendance on the committee, and shall endeavour to give notice to any Member whom he proposes to be discharged from the committee."
I understand that these are redrafting points, and under the terms of the Committee, it would have been difficult for it to have made it a requirement that any hon. Member intending to propose that an hon. Member "shall" obtain the consent from the hon. Member and "shall" give notice to the hon. Member concerned. Membership of Select Committees is drawn up by Whips of either side, who started from an illiberal beginning when they voted, and organised the vote to exclude an hon. Member. They have continued their illiberal practice ever since, with variations on the theme. There have been occasions when hon. Members have found their names on lists or have been taken off, when they have not been consulted. It would have been useful to alter the Standing Order to ensure that an hon. Member understands the position and is consulted.
However, the Committee was not empowered to do that because the terms of reference were limited to
"report upon the re-arrangement and re-drafting of the Standing Orders so as to bring them into conformity with existing practice."
That is all. It is a minor task, but we should thank the Committee for its endeavours, because it is a boring task as well. The fact that it has been undertaken is a credit to the Committee. However, having given it that limited and narrow task, we should not consider a major alteration by means of a side wind—that is, the recommendation that if hon. Members are named and therefore suspended, they should lose their pay.
When the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) proposed his amendment, he said that hon. Members were paid to turn up and do a job here. That is true, but it does not apply universally. I wish that it did. As I argued before, if that was the criterion that applied, payment would be withheld from a large number of people. However, that is not the criterion. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, that it is a considerable punishment, indeed the greatest one that can be inflicted, to deny an hon. Member access to this place. We pass annual orders to ensure that they have access to this place, so that we can have an unfettered ability to get here. We do that, whether or not it is effective, to emphasise the importance of our attendance here. People work extremely hard to get to this place and argue lengthily and mightily at elections that they, and not others, should represent the people here. Therefore, once they have got here, to deny them access is a considerable punishment.
Mr. Crouch: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about denying hon. Members access, but he suggested earlier that some hon. Members were not here all the time. If we are to demonstrate outside that it is a punishment, and we are prepared to take it, hon. Members should be prepared not only to be denied access here, but to be denied payment for not being here.
Mr. Cryer: I am saying that punishment is enough.
It is not true to suppose that the level of noise in this place is in some way allied to the ability to throw people out. The noisiest times are not always the times when people are removed. There have been noisier occasions when individuals have not been punished because the House has been suspended. For example, there was on that well-known occasion when the Mace was, for some reason, removed from its resting place—I have some
406
reservations about the position of the Secretary of State for Defence because if he has another rush of blood to the head he now has buttons to press and it is much more harmless to remove the Mace. On that occasion, the House was suspended when there was clearly an individual action. I am not criticising the Speaker of the day for that, but it is not true that noise and the ability to throw an hon. Member out are related.
On another occasion, when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was named, he spoke quietly and merely said that he was putting a little notice on the Table. It was a quiet and measured occasion, but it probably took everybody's breath away. The removal of pay is not necessary to make the offence that more heinous and neither will the chilling obligation of being both excluded and losing pay make the House behave that much more quietly.
We are a noisy assembly. It may be that through broadcasting people outside bring their influence to bear and some procedures change. Noise can be defended. Assemblies that are quiet and in which the speaker is listened to in respectful silence because it is the custom and practice of the assembly, may be nice assemblies, but they are inordinately dull. One of the strengths and virtues of this place is that hon. Members stand up and challenge other hon. Members on points. It is an interchange of ideas, and a clash of wills. That is a strength.
For example, when I have the opportunity to ask questions of the Prime Minister, which is not sufficiently often, there are occasionally some odd comments from Conservative Benches. I do not grumble at that, and I do not go on radio to say what a noisy place this is. I expect and understand the noise, and feel that one of the challenges of this place is to be able to stand up to it.
This happens to be by tradition a noisy place. It is. on many occasions, the stronger for it, although I do not include in that observation the scenes between 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock when on many occasions when we were in government—this tends to be forgotten—the words of the Minister's winding-up speech could not be heard. I am talking about the way that people can interject, ideas can be challenged and hon. Members who come to speak at either Dispatch Box have to be reasonably certain of what they are saying to confront the House with their ideas. That is not a bad thing either, because if one has a quiet and respectful assembly it is easier to get away with things than if that is not the case.
Noise is a characteristic of ours, and removing five days' pay will not change it. The barring of an hon. Member from the House is sufficient punishment. What is more, the loss of pay would be much more onerous to Members of Parliament who are full-time Members of Parliament—the very hon. Members to whom the hon. Member for Tiverton referred—than those who are not. The report refers to a clarification of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration).
We know that some hon. Members, although not all, have outside interests. If a Member with outside interests is suspended for five days with loss of pay, he will not feel it. Hon. Members will not be badly done by if they are not paid for a few days. I am not arguing that they will be, because we are well paid. However, some hon. Members are not only well paid as Members of Parliament but handsomely paid from outside jobs as well. I am opposed to that. Hon. Members should be full-time, and work at the job. I do not wish to go into the arguments about

407
whether outside work enriches the House, because the arguments about outside work are never made by engineering workers or road maintenance workers or coal miners but in defence of company directorships, which are supposed to enrich the House.
The removal of part of the parliamentary salary will have little effect, especially if the suspended Member has outside interests. The person who will be hit hardest will be the full-time member of Parliament, who will not be dealt with fairly. That is another reason why I do not support the removal of salary.
It has also been argued that, if a Member is thrown out, he will get a lot of money from the media and, therefore, it will not matter. That is not necessarily true. Indeed, it is unlikely to be the case. I have no experience of this, although I may have had one or two near misses, but I am quite sure that other hon. Members can testify from experience. I believe that, when a Member is thrown out, there is a brief acknowledgement from television, mostly as a matter of practical application from film crews immediately on the spot. In those circumstances, I do not think that a fee is received. Therefore, the notion that such a Member can derive substantial income, or any income at all, is not true.
The Committee is trying to do something by a side wind that was not within its terms of reference. The penalty of exclusion is sufficient. The removal of salary would apply unfairly among Members, some of whom are full-time and some of whom are part time with outside interests. In any event, such occasions are so rare That they do not merit this additional burden on Members. By and large—indeed, universally—hon. Members acknowledge the rules of debate that enable us to exchange ideas. There are sometimes challenges to the Chair, but that has not been so only since 1979. Between 1974 and 1979, there were many challenges to the Chair. That depends on the quick wittedness, wit and deafness of the Chair. At times it is an onerous and difficult task, but it will not be helped one jot by the removal of a Member's salary.
I am in the somewhat uneasy position of supporting the recommendation of the Leader of the House. In spite of that, I hope that the House too will support his recommendation.
7.43 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I shall not detain the House for very long, but at the outset I should say that I am not exactly in tune with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). He said that he had never been thrown out, and it makes a difference when one has been thrown out. Certainly the experience can change one's attitude to the suggested removal of salary.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) referred to disorderly conduct. There will certainly be none tonight. However, during the recess many hon. Members will be going abroad, possibly to the Caribbean or to the Cayman Islands. Many of them are probably now in the Smoking Room drinking the hours away. We are not allowed to say that they are drunk, but without a doubt some of them are half sober. It seems like disorderly conduct when they come wobbling into the Chamber at 10 o'clock when a vote is taking place. That is probably the occasion on which to label someone disorderly.
408
There are many ways in which one can describe disorderly conduct. Having listened to the radio and heard the animal-like noises between 3.15 and 3.30, the public are bound to reach the conclusion that this place is like a beer garden. The problem is that some of us who wait for a lull in the proceedings, when all the "Hear, hearing" has receded, sometimes fall foul of Mr. Speaker.
Frankly, I believe that my interventions make more sense than the animal-like noises, especially when the SDP has something to say. Indeed, it is novel for the SDP to develop policy on the Floor of the House of Commons, even if some of its Members pronounce Ravenscraig as "Wavenscwaig". I noticed that on that occasion Dr. Death was laughing his head off, and we know why. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)—the boy David—was also quite pleased.
I am concerned that the Select Committee report has come to the House with such speed. Normally, these reports, do not come to the House very quickly, and on some occasions they are debated years after they are published. Only last week I spoke in an Adjournment debate on the tragic case of Alan Grimshaw, who gave evidence to the Select Committee on nationalised industries in 1973–74. That report was never debated on the Floor of the House. Had it been, it would have been dynamite. I was, therefore, surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley reminded us of the speed at which this report had come to the House.
Some time ago I referred to the Secretary of State for Employment as the Secretary of State for Unemployment. One thing led to another, and I think I described him as a liar instead of using a phrase such as "terminological inexactitude"—[Interruption.] I am merely quoting what was said at the time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is quoting an unparliamentary expression. Perhaps, as a favour to me, he will leave his quotations alone over Eastertide.
Mr. Skinner: I could, Mr. Speaker, have used the phrase terminological inexactitude, but no people in Bolsover would have understood the significance of using that phrase. In any event, that is water under the bridge.
Having been ordered out of the Chamber, I should not have regarded it as a hardship had the money been stopped, because I thought that that would happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley must disabuse himself of the idea that if he gets ordered out of the Chamber he will get on to the box, certainly within the confines of this place. He may get to Wells street or somewhere else, but the police are quick to act on the instructions of the Serjeant at Arms. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) also plays a prominent part in these "throwing out" jobs.
When the television people wanted to escort me to their studio in the Norman Shaw building so that I could explain to the wide world—and to Bolsover in particular—what had happened, I was not allowed to go with them. I finished up on the lawn outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is absolutely right. When a Member does a television interview on the lawn, with Big Ben in the background, it does not come under the Equity rules and he will not get paid.
I do not want to give the impression that it can be regarded as a punishment to lose a day's pay when a

409
Member of Parliament's salary is about £14,000 a year. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley votes tonight, if there is a Division, he will not support the Leader of the House on the basis that he is trying to save some money for impoverished men.
Before I came to this place I was working at the pit. I was earning less than £18 a week. In those days I knew what it was like to lose a day's pay for being late for work, for example. That was a hardship. The loss of a day's pay made a real difference to the weekly pay packet.
Mr. Walter Harrison: I can remember quarters being stopped.
Mr. Skinner: The memories are flooding back to my right hon. Friend, who has been in this place for a long time. If there is a vote tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and I will be in different Lobbies. That does not happen very often. I have no doubt that it will be extremely confusing to at least one hon. Member, who shall remain nameless.
We should not feel sorry for those in this place who lose a day's pay. Instead, our sorrow should go all the time to those whose wages are being docked by the Government. We should be fighting, for example, for the nurses, who have had a real cut in wages. So many have been hammered by the Government's policies. The 4 million who have been thrown out of work have lost all their wages.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have strayed a long way from the motion.
Mr. Skinner: I was trying to win some sympathy from you, Mr. Speaker, because of the hundreds of thousands who are out of work in Wales. Let us think of them and not worry too much about the tiny problem which will not bear very hard upon us. If there is a Division, I shall vote with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
7.53 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I am one of the "unfortunates" who have been named and asked to leave the Chamber. That happened to me earlier in the year. I went to the Library to ascertain whether suspension of Members over the past 10 years warranted serious consideration by the Select Committee. I was surprised to find that suspensions are rare. That was the position until 1981, when six hon. Members were suspended in the one year. In 1982, if the information that I received from the Library is correct, there were only three suspensions. In the few months that have passed this year, there have been two suspensions. On the most recent occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was suspended. On the previous occasion, I was suspended. My suspension occurred late at night a few days earlier.
I have read the reasons why other hon. Members have been suspended and I have read why Mr. Speaker had to adjourn a debate on one occasion. That happened on the occasion to which my hon. Friend the Member of Keighley (Mr. Cryer) referred. I have contrasted the events of 27 May 1976—I read the report that appeared in Hansard and discussed the matter with those who were serving in the House at the time—with my suspension on 16 February. What would have happened to a Labour Member if he had pretended to be a drum major with the Mace? I am sure
410
that he would not have received the same treatment as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is now the Secretary of State for Defence. He played drum major with the Mace and caused the sitting to be suspended.
I have read the report in the Official Report—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not impute that I would not treat both sides of the House equally. He has given an inadequate picture of what took place on the night of 27 May 1976. He was not a Member at the time. If he had been here, he would know that other things happened that night which were not referred to in Hansard but which I saw.
Mr. Powell: I am not making that imputation, Mr. Speaker. I can go only by what I read in Hansard. There is a reference in Hansard to grave disorder having arisen in the House. That is the record that appears in Hansard.
On the following day the right hon. Member for Henley made a personal statement. He said:
"Last night, Mr. Speaker, I removed the Mace from its position. I deeply regret my action. I was hoping to be able to apologise to you and the House when you returned to the Chair last night. That was not possible, and I now take this first opportunity of apologising unreservedly."—[Official Report, 28 May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 769.]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said when the House sat the following day.
I was suspended on 16 February when I was trying to raise a point of order during a debate. I was trying to make a point of order on important parliamentary constituency boundaries in Wales. It was possible to table amendments in the Table Office, but the order that was before us was not amendable. Therefore, my amendment could not be called. That was a reasonable ground for raising a point of order. On that night it was the only point of order that I felt was reasonable. I was persistent in asking Mr. Deputy Speaker whether he would accept the amendment, and unfortunately I was suspended.
I share the view that has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Most of us could reasonably afford the loss of a day's pay on suspension. My hon. Friend made the relevant observation that not all hon. Members attend the House regularly. Perhaps it would be wise to have a clocking on and clocking off system with Members of Parliament on both sides of the House being paid for their attendance. The attendance of some hon. Members would perhaps be very different if that system were rigidly operated.
I take exception to the suggestion that Members should be suspended if, in the course of representing their constituents, they try to get your attention, Mr. Speaker, by raising points of order and hoping that you will call them. Surely Members should be afforded the right of appeal if they are suspended because they have persisted in attempting to raise points of order. I submit that right should be given to them if they are to be suspended for the duration of the sitting. I suggest that some independent body should decide whether a Member is to be suspended in accordance with our Standing Orders. Some hon. Members might be reluctant to persist in properly representing their constituents if it means that they can be suspended without pay, because they might have family and other commitments, such as a mortgage, and have no other interests to supplement their salaries.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the suspension of pay would affect Labour Members more

411
than Conservative Members because Labour Members depend solely on their parliamentary income? That rule would bear unfairly on one section of the membership of the House, because those with outside interests would be in an advantageous position.
Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend. One has only to look at the new booklet on the declaration of interests to see the many outside interests of Conservative Members compared with Labour Members. Therefore, it is important that Labour Members should seriously consider the Select Committee's suggestion.
Because few hon. Members have been suspended, I sincerely believe that there should be no suggestion that their pay should be suspended. It is enough that they are suspended and have to leave the Chamber so that they cannot represent their constituents. I was fortunate in that I was unable to represent my constituents for only one hour and five minutes—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not suspended; he was ordered out of the Chamber for misconduct. He is following a wrong tack to suggest that the Chair did not behave correctly. It is not open to him to attack the Chair tonight. If he wishes to do that, he must table a motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Powell: Nevertheless, I had to leave the House. Therefore, I could not represent my constituents for one hour and five minutes; nor could I participate in the vote that took place on that occasion.
I wonder how much of my salary I would have lost if I had been suspended for one hour and five minutes. Had I been suspended on that occasion—the decision was not yours, Mr. Speaker; if was the decision of Mr. Deputy Speaker— I should not have been able to attend the following day's proceedings of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, and it was imperative that I should. Having been present in the debate on Welsh boundaries and having read the Official Report of the proceedings carefully, I believe that there was no necessity for me to be suspended.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is grossly out of order in saying that and criticising the occupant of the Chair. I am sorry that he did so.
8.4 pm
Mr. Gary WallerI have been inspired to make a short contribution, perhaps the shortest of the debate, by the speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which has shown me how wise my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is to recommend to the House that the recommendation of the Select Committee on the deduction of Members' pay should not be implemented.
One reason why it is so rare for a Member to be suspended from the service of the House is that it is not seen by the public to be a great sacrifice. If it were, as it might be if it involved deduction of pay, I suspect that many hon. Members would be queueing up, particularly as election time grew nearer, to make that sacrifice. It would enable them to show how strongly they felt about their constituents' interests, for which they were prepared to lose a day's pay.
That may not have been in my right hon. Friend's mind, but I suspect that if the proposal were to be implemented,
412
we might find that the need for Members to be suspended would grow considerably. Therefore, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has made the decision not to do so tonight.
8.5 pm
Mr. Biffen: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate which one might not have supposed would have come from so closely argued a series of textual criticisms as is contained in the Select Committee's report. The House has much enjoyed having the topic somewhat widened. I appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) who suggested that hon. Members might sign on for their emoluments because that is the practice of the other place. When we see the more self-confessedly radical Members of the Labour party looking to the House of Lords for some inspiration for our practices, I know that there is still a good future for consensus politics in the United Kingdom.
In substance, the debate has turned around two points—first, the consideration of a nationalised industries Committee and, secondly, Standing Order No. 24. On the former, I appreciate the general sense that has been argued in the House this evening and the support that has been given to the view that no definitive judgment should be reached tonight. In particular in that context, I welcome the support of and confirmation from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas).
It is the contentious issue of Standing Order No. 24 and the possibility of withholding the pay of those hon. Members who are suspended that has seized most of our imaginations. It says much for the strong sense of puritanism that is within the heart of every hon. Member that many, not least the hon. Member for Ogmore, were anxious to have that provision apply to the circumstances in which they had been required to withdraw from the House, although the reform is intended only for grand and not lesser offenders. Whether the hon. Gentleman aspires to that more dramatic gesture, I know not, but, if it lies within my ability, I would like to discourage him.
The debate has highlighted the problem which properly concerns hon. Members because we are the guardians and keepers of the reputation of the House, and orderly and disorderly conduct bear upon that. But let there be no misunderstanding. The original Standing Orders date back to the last century, when behaviour in the House was infinitely more disorderly than it is today. There have been seven suspensions in this Parliament—just under two a year. I do not speak with any complacency or plead that in extenuation, but I suspect that, in an assembly where debate and conduct have inevitably tended to be a good deal more lively than in some other assemblies, we strike a balance among the various components of debate, including that of noise and disorder, which are historically integral to the conduct of our affairs. I suspect that we do that as well today as we have done at any time in generations past. I will not argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) because he will sense that he had more robust criticism of his speech from others than from me. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), should the new Standing Orders be confirmed this evening, they will become effective as soon as the resolution is agreed to. I make a reference of gratitude to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr.

413
Cunningham). I doubt whether the revised Standing Orders in their pristine and pure exposition of language will stand alongside Milton or Shakespeare but to have done something to improve the language in the essential bureaucracy of this place is, indeed, an achievement. I congratulate him on that point.
8.11 pm
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was interested, though by no means surprised, that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) confirmed the widely-held view that he expected that his salary would cease to be paid during his suspension from the service of the House. That is the universal expectation outside the House. That is also the widely-held, if incorrect, belief among those in the Lobby who comment on the affairs of the House, who are often surprised, if not astonished, to find that that is not the position.
The case, if I might dignify it with that word, put by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) from the Opposition Front Bench is that he has some difficulty in dividing his annual salary by 365 to establish what five days' suspension means in terms of salary. That is such a trivial objection that he had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find any argument against my proposition. I doubt whether his argument carries weight.
The argument for this reform did not arise when Standing Order No. 24 was first passed, simply because there was no salary that could be suspended. The opportunity was missed, just as many opportunities have been missed in subsequent revisions of Standing Orders. This seems an appropriate time to remedy what many hon. Members regard as an anomaly, in that the same salary is paid to hon. Members even when they have been suspended from the service of the House for defiance of the Chair.
I am pleased that it has been emphasised yet again that this proposition does not apply when an hon. Member is ordered to withdraw. It applies only to gross defiance of the Chair, which occurs when an hon. Member is named rather than ordered to withdraw. That is the only circumstance covered by Standing Order No. 24.
The withdrawal of salary would apply in many circumstances in life exterior to this House, such as in industry—
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his argument, may I ask whether he is suggesting that the salary for membership of the House is related solely to attending debates in the House?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Far from my not having suggested that, if the right hon. Gentleman had been present when I proposed the amendment he would have heard me say the contrary. I said that an hon. Member, although not allowed in the precincts of the House, except to serve on a private Bill Committee, could still deal with his constituency correspondence. I expressly said that for that reason his secretarial allowance would not be affected. The right hon. Gentleman would have heard me say that if he had been in his place at the beginning of this debate, or perhaps his memory has let him down.
It is from the service of the House—in the House, the precincts, the Chamber, the Select Committees and the Standing Committees—that an hon. Member is suspended when, having been named by the Chair, the motion is put
414
and carried. If it is not carried by the House, the hon. Member is not suspended. I emphasise that an hon. Member is not suspended from the service of the House initially for five days by the Chair. He or she is suspended from the service of the House by his or her fellow Members voting on the motion.
It is appropriate that in those circumstances no salary should be paid for the duration of the suspension. That view would be widely, if not universally, held outside the House. I believe that this is the proper occasion to remedy the anomaly of the absence of that provision. Therefore, I intend to press the amendment to a Division if it is opposed.
Question put, That the amendment be made;—
The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 88.

Division No. 109]

[8.17 pm

AYES

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Ayes:

Snape, Peter

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and

Mr. Tony Speller.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Knox, David

Ancram, Michael

Lang, Ian

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

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Major, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Marlow, Antony

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Mather, Carol

Body, Richard

Maynard, Miss Joan

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Bright, Graham

Murphy, Christopher

Brooke, Hon Peter

Myles, David

Buck, Antony

Neale, Gerrard

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Neubert, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Newton, Tony

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

Osborn, John

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

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Cope, John

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Cryer, Bob

Palmer, Arthur

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Parry, Robert

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Dixon, Donald

Prescott, John

Dubs, Alfred

Price, C, (Lewisham W)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Proctor, K. Harvey

Durant, Tony

Race, Reg

Eggar, Tim

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Farr, John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Fitt, Gerard

Silvester, Fred

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Spearing, Nigel

Foster, Derek

Sproat, Iain

Goodlad, Alastair

Squire, Robin

Hamilton, Hon A.

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Thompson, Donald

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Hayhoe, Barney

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Haynes, Frank

Waller, Gary

Hicks, Robert

Watson, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Wells, Bowen

Home Robertson, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Kerr, Russell

Mr. David Hunt and

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the repeals of, and Amendments to, the Standing Orders of this House relating to Public Business, and the new Standing Orders, recommended by the Select Committee on Standing

415
Orders (Revision) in their Report and stated in the Appendix thereto, be made, subject to the following modification, namely, in Standing Order No. 65 (Procedure in standing committees), paragraph (3), line 11, after 'committee' insert 'or to a motion relating to a document referred to a committee under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community documents)', and to the following omissions, namely, the recommended Amendment to Standing Order No. 24 (Order in debate), paragraph (2), at the end to add `and no salary shall be payable to such Member in respect of such period of suspension', and the recommended Amendments to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 86A (Select Committees related to Government departments).

PETITION

  British Citizens (Right to Vote)
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish to present to the House a petition that I have received which is signed by 521 British citizens presently resident in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The petition is brief and self-explanatory, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read the substantive part of it. It
  Showeth that at least 300,000 British citizens resident in the other member states of the European Community were unable to vote in the 1979 elections to the European Parliament owing to the refusal of the British Government and Parliament to grant them the right to vote, and that this right has to this day not been granted.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that legislation be introduced to enable British citizens resident in other member states of the European Community to vote in the United Kingdom in the 1984 elections to the European Parliament.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Merchant Shipping
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Archie Hamilton.]
8.27 pm
Mr. John Prescott: The House has had few occasions to debate the important merchant shipping industry, which is now, on any definition, in crisis. There was a debate in July 1981, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) raised the subject of flags of convenience and the threat to the world shipping trade, and British shipping in particular. We had an Adjournment debate on 25 November 1982 when the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) spoke about the Merchant Navy fleet and its strategic value after the Falklands conflict. I understand that no Government time has been provided for a debate on the Merchant Navy.
The Government may argue that the Minister has been involved in discussions with the owners and trade unions on all aspects of the industry to formulate his view about the crisis facing merchant shipping. On 18 March, the Minister gave what I believe to be the Government's considered view in rejecting the views put forward in joint consultations by the industry and the trade unions. One can assume, following that reply of 18 March, that the Government now have a considered view of what they believe is the best policy to deal with the catastrophic decline of the Merchant Navy.
The Minister having now formed his view, will he ensure that the Government provide time to debate this important industry? I am fortunate tonight to have more time for my Adjournment debate than is normally expected. Had other Members known that more time would be available, they would have come to debate the issue this evening, but they may have been put off by the thought that only half an hour was available for the debate.
There is a need for a full-scale debate on the Merchant Navy, first, because a crisis faces the industry—a crisis of which everyone is aware—and, secondly, because there is a clear division between the views of the Government and of the industry. There is a difference of view between the Government's policy towards the British merchant fleet and that of the Opposition. Since 18 March, there has been a difference between the Government's professed view and that of the industry, in which I include both the unions and the employers. The combined view of the industry and the Opposition is that if the Government continue with the same policies, we can expect only a further collapse and decline in this important strategic industry. Indeed, the industry has already expressed the view that if the policies continue, the present 900 ships—there were 1,200 ships when the Government came to office—will decline to 600 by 1985. Over the past four years the number of ships has declined by about two a week. If the present policies continue, by 1985 the number of ships will have declined by about six a week. The sale of the famous Ellerman Line this week emphasises the continuing decline not only of individual ships but of shipping companies with long traditions.
The catastrophic decline is well catalogued. I shall quote the figures given by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade in reply to an Adjournment debate on 25 November 1982. In 1966, the British fleet stood at 27 million deadweight tonnes; in 1975, it was 52 million deadweight
418
tonnes; and in 1982 it was 32 million deadweight tonnes. That represents almost a 50 per cent. decline in the tonnage of the fleet since 1975. It is not difficult to understand the reasons for the decline. Adjournment debates have recorded the views of the Government and of Members on both sides of the House.
It is agreed that a depression in world trade clearly affects world shipping, but the interesting fact to note, as the Minister will acknowledge, is that since 1970 the world's fleet has grown, and has continued to grow, and world trade has continued to increase. However, along came the slump, which brought with it over-capacity.
As the Minister told the House, freight rates have collapsed by 50 per cent. since 1981. The Minister, of course, referred to bulk trade rates, not necessarily to the conference line rates for liner cargoes. The decline in liner freight rates has occurred less primarily because shipowners, despite all their rhetoric about free trade, maintain a conference system to guarantee a higher price to the shipper to maintain continuity of service. They actively intervene to protect themselves against the full effects of market forces and competition.
If fleet growth has occurred as a result of the free market philosophy, as the Minister would have us believe, and that is the sole principle which determines whether fleets decline or increase, the major factor, so often quoted by the Minister, is that it depends on the costs of the fleets. He appears to think that that means crew costs.
Let us examine the growth of fleets from 1970 to 1980. Liberia has doubled its fleet and is now the largest ship-owning country. Panama has increased its fleet by 10 times, and Greece by five times. Those countries all share the obvious feature of flags of convenience. In Europe, France, Italy, Japan and Denmark have increased their fleets, but, peculiarly enough, they all have a higher cost structure and, in some cases, higher manning levels than the British fleet. Therefore, it cannot be said that crude costs and manning levels have led to the decline of the British fleet. European countries whose fleets have declined include the United Kingdom, West Germany and Norway.
There has been a growth in the Soviet fleet. Although it amounts to no more than 5 per cent. of the world's fleets, that fact invokes great anger from the Minister. He does not feel the same anger about the flag of convenience fleets that amount to 30 per cent. of the world's fleets. But, of course, the Russians are in a class of their own. Their fleet doubled between 1970 and 1980. I shall refer later to the difference in the Government's attitude to what they see as the Russian threat and the flags of convenience fleets.
We must reject the view that the decline has come about because of high crew costs and manning levels. The British merchant fleet has gone through considerable change. There has been technological change with the development of bulk traders, tankers and containers. There has been a decline in the cargo liner ships, the tramp ships and other traditional ships of the 1960s and 1970s. Bulk traders are now the predominant influence in the voice of the shipowner. They have always been divided between their different interests, and that has been reflected in the nature of their demands upon the Government. Current demands from industry are largely influenced by bulk traders, yet conference line controls do not apply to that area where the free force of the market has its greatest effect. That is why the Minister so often mouths high crew costs as the predominant factor in the fleet's decline.

419
Manpower changes have occurred because of the technological changes and the decline in world trade. I first went to sea in 1965, when there were 150,000 seamen and officers. That number fell to 70,000 in 1975, and it is 50,000 today. There are 4,000 seamen on the dole, waiting for jobs.
The employment of British seafarers does not relate only to ships with the British flag. Because British registered vessels are registered under the British flag, it does not mean that they are British-owned and crewed by British residents. The ownership of ships under the British flag by foreign companies has increased from 21 per cent. in 1970 to 53 per cent. in 1980.
Lord Rochdale examined the industry in 1970 and said that we may have to intervene if foreign ownerships began to increase. His worst fears have been realised. It is unfortunate that we have a Government who profess to be non-interventionist and firm believers in market forces.
With this decline we have been unable to guarantee enough ship orders for our shipyards or to provide sufficient jobs for British seafarers. There has been a collapse of investment, with catastrophic effects on the shipyards. Investment by owners is now 65 per cent. of the 1975 level. It is probably the lowest home shipbuilding orders of any national fleet. The earnings of the British merchant navy fleet have fallen to such an extent that we now pay more for the services from shipping than we earn from them. Less than 50 per cent. of the trade in the United Kingdom is in British ships.
I think we all agree that there has been a catastrophic decline. I take the point that the Minister has made in previous debates that there was a massive increase in the fleet in 1975 and that therefore one should take an earlier date to get the matter into proper perspective. I do not accept that, because even the total figures show a decreasing share of the world tonnage by the British merchant service. The effect of that decline, both in world percentage and total tonnage, has not been dictated simply by free market forces.
If we ask people in the industry why we have reached this stage, even taking into account the depression in world trade, what they say is radically different from what the Government say. The industry says that trade is determined not simply by free trade; other matters affect trade. Therefore, it seeks financial support, such as cash investment allowances. For many decades shipowners have said that they believed in free enterprise, but in reality they have always received considerable subsidies. It is interesting to note that in a reply from the Minster, referring to subsidies, he mentions no "new" subsidies. However, a considerable amount of money is poured into the British merchant fleet.
An interesting study carried out by the UNCTAD conference on flags of convenience compared the financial incentives of registering in a flag of convenience country with those of registering in developed countries. The financial incentives in the subsidies given in developed countries and those that could be acquire through the tax haven approach in flags of convenience countries were not so different. The real advantage of flags of convenience lay in manning and certification, being able to change from one company to another, not having to comply with company regulations—something that the Minister has mentioned in past debates—and the requirements to
420
observe proper and adequate safety standards. That is what one acquires with flags of convenience. They are not necessarily financial incentives, although clearly there must be a positive financial incentive.
I note that the owners want some form of intervention, but they want it to be qualified. They asked the Minister—a willing servant in this respect—to intervene with the Russian fleets. It is said, for example, that Russia has 90 per cent. and Britain only 10 per cent. of the trade between the two countries. The same argument about a proper share applies to trade between Britain and Poland in the Baltic. Indeed, a shipowner was pleased to tell a number of Labour Members recently that there is now a 50–50 share in the trade between Poland and Britain. For the past 10 years we have been saying that it is the role of the Government to ensure that share. We in the Labour party call that planned trade. That is our policy. Yet that shipowner welcomed it, only a few weeks ago, as something new. The Government reject an interventionist role of that nature. It is a role that they do not want to play.
The Government made it clear in their reply to a parliamentary question on 18 March that they reject the two different approaches by the two sides of industry as to how to deal with the problem. The National Union of Seamen, in its excellent document "Heading for the Rocks", which I know the Minister has received, along with papers from the discussion groups that he set up, refers to a highly interventionist and protectionist role, with planned trade and public ownership. The Government's response was clearly spelt out in their answer in Hansard on 18 March. They said:
"The Government have no intention whatsoever of setting up in any form a nationalised shipping line; nor of paying operating subsidies to maintain the fleet at a given uncommercial size. Furthermore, they have no intention whatsoever of bringing in controls to require United Kingdom shippers, whether nationalised industry or private sector shippers, or foreign shippers, to use any percentage whatever of United Kingdom shipping contrary to their commercial judgment.
Furthermore, this Government have no intention whatsoever of setting up a cabotage regime for United Kingdom ports."—[Official Report, 18 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 290.]
That is interesting when one bears in mind that in a debate the Minister said:
"The present Soviet practices are not proper commercial practices and they pose a threat to fleets such as our own, whose operations are properly commercial … Soviet wages tend to be about one third of comparable Western rates."—[Official Report, 25 November 1982, Vol. 32, c. 1112.]
The Minister said that he intended to open negotiations in February with the Soviet Union to renegotiate trade and change the imbalance of United Kingdom-Soviet Union shipping operations which was 90 per cent.–10 per cent. in the Soviet Union's favour. I do not know whether the Minister will tell us whether he has achieved that. I should like to let him into a secret. It is called intervention. It is called planned trade. One intervenes because of lower wages which, according to the Minister, are unfair. They may happen to be a little higher than flags of convenience wages in some cases, but in those cases the Minister recognises it as a free competitive market. How does he live with that difference? Is it simply because one is a Russian flag and another is apparently a more friendly flag of convenience country?
The Government were not prepared to increase Asian wages despite an agreement between the industry and the Labour Government to increase the terrible wages paid to Asians on British ships, where there is racial

421
discrimination in the amount of money that is paid to white and brown people. The Minister refuses to do anything about it. That is a little hypocritical, when he talks about the level of wages affecting the decline of our fleet.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Does my hon. Friend agree that although we initially encountered some opposition from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to the proposals to which my hon. Friend referred, it was clearly the Labour Government's view that if those Governments wished to protect their economic position and had it within their power to operate a clawback system in regard to taxation, that was the right policy to pursue, and the Government should have insisted upon it?
Mr. Prescott: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on the work that he did when he was a Minister in the Labour Government in bringing about that agreement.
That is the way in which to determine wage rates on foreign ships. They should be applicable according to the flag. One country should not be able to dictate the rate of wages for its nationals who are employed under another country's flag. That principle is simple enough. It is up to the Government to use it. The Minister may know that the union has given notice that the tradition in the industry of a maritime agreement that has allowed that practice to continue will finish within six months. That practice on British ships will end.
In his reply, giving his proposals for solving the problems in the industry, the Minister said:
"Protectionism and cargo reservation is growing elsewhere in the world. It must be halted and then reversed both for the sake of the United Kingdom and world trade. Over two thirds of our international freight earnings come from cross tradings".
That analyses the problem, but the Government are actively involved in developing protectionism. While both the Administration and the industry were backward in the UNCTAD agreements about the 40:40:20 formula, the Government have played a part in developing the Brussels package which is about protectionism and an agreement with the Third world countries about how we will share trade.
The Government are playing an interventionist role. Even though developed countries may have a free market philosophy, the Governmet will still intervene in world trade. In the written reply on 18 March the Government also said:
"the United Kingdom is regarded as such a long-time upholder of the principles and practice of open trading that for the United Kingdom to abandon open trading for protectionism would start a rapid move towards protectionism around the world—greatly to the damage of the United Kingdom."
The Government have endorsed a protectionist role in the Brussels package and the UNCTAD agreement. They have intervened with Russia and no doubt with Poland to get an agreement. Presumably they will seek to implement the UNCTAD agreement so that the Third world can play a part in developing free trade.
At the same time as expressing these views about free trade, the Government have been passing laws to protect British companies from giving information to the American Federal Maritime Commission about costs imposed on goods coming from America to the United Kingdom or going from the United Kingdom to America under the conference line system. The House rushed the
422
legislation through almost overnight to protect our people from an inquisition by private enterprise in America. Government actions in many fields are hypocritical.
In response to the industry's request for more subsidies, the Government take the view that
"Government subsidy blunts the incentive to create the necessary, truly commercial, competitive edge."—[Official Report, 18 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 290–91.]
Although the Government take that view, they have done as much as the previous Government in pouring out a considerable amount of money in subsidy in one form or another. They are prepared to wreck the industrial base by removing subsidies, more in an ideological fit of passion.
The Government have made it clear that they are non-interventionist, but, when we consider what they are proposing, we see that they are playing an interventionist role in selected areas. They are not prepared to give new subsidies, although the money given to Cunard for the Atlantic Conveyor must have involved subsidies. Much must be going too through free depreciation.
The Government put themselves up as free market philosophers and say that they are not prepared to intervene. That is clearly nonsense, as shown by the examples I have given. What is more aggravating when we are looking for a consistent approach from the Government is that the Department of Trade and other Departments are actively involved in interventionist policies. In other spheres, such as textiles, the Government are bringing before the House protectionist measures time and time again to stop the flow of imports and to defend the industry. The same policy is being followed to a certain extent in the shipbuilding industry.
The Ministry of Agriculture introduced a measure on shipping, about which I assume the Minister was consulted, although he was not in attendance. The problem facing the Ministry of Agriculture was that Spanish trawlers, with Spanish seamen, were, as it saw it, pinching British fish. Within 24 hours, the Ministry of Agriculture put through the House a measure requiring that only British crews—because of community law it could not say British crews, but that is what it meant—will now be employed on British ships. That was active intervention to protect British capital and jobs by another Department involved with ships without any representation or statement from the Department of Trade. That principle is no different from that called for by the National Union of Seamen. It falls on deaf ears at the Department of Trade but on far more receptive ears at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Minister professes belief in free trade but ignores it in areas in which the Government wish to take protectionist action. The Minister's clear role in intervention is clear from the other question that he answered on 18 March. On that occasion, he maintained that Government intervention was necessary because, he said,
"1 believe that the decline of the British Merchant Navy can be halted and reversed."
He then let us into the secret of how that could be done. He said:
"United Kingdom crew manning levels, in far too many cases, are as much as 25 per cent. or more higher than those of European competitors—European competitors with high technical and safety standards, and with the extra crew costs, conceded over the years, such as reductions in tours of duty entailing heavy repatriation expenses which, taken together,

423
have multiplied the number of men that need to be employed to fill one seagoing job."—[Official Report, 18 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 292.]
As a result of union negotiations, men no longer have to spend 12 months or two years at sea but can get home to see their families after three months. Of course that involves extra cost, but apparently the Minister expects us to give it up to save our merchant fleet. In other words, we must reduce our social standards and aspirations to the lowest level—that dictated by the market.
The Minister says that we must stop pressing for higher manning levels beyond those required for safety and stop seeking other crew-related improvements, but he ignores the crucial question of what constitutes safe manning. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister about that today. I presume that in coming to the conclusion that manning costs pay a major part he has compared them with his concept of optimum costs. Perhaps he will give us some examples. When I challenged him at Question Time, he said that his comparisons with fair crew costings related not to Panamanian or other flag of convenience fleets but to the Norwegians. I hope that he will support that with examples as I have sought the necessary information to make the same fair comparison. The Minister has in fact embarked upon an attempt to alter manning requirements, a number of which are laid down in the Merchant Shipping Acts, especially the requirements about certification—procedures which are less readily observed by flag of convenience fleets but which play a major part in the far better safety record of this country compared with the flag of convenience countries and Norway.
With regard to Norway, I have figures from various authorities and I shall await with interest the Minister's comments. It is clear that some Norwegian manning levels, especially in the 1,600 to 2,000-tonne area, are much higher than current British levels. I do not know whether the Norwegians intend to reduce their levels to ours, but in this context the Minister should bear in mind the difference in manning levels between the Irish and the British on the Union Star. The manning level on the Union Star under the Irish flag was 25 per cent. lower than that required under a British flag. The inquiry in Cornwall will show that the manning level was inadequate, as is already clear from the evidence given at the inquiry. Inadequate manning can lead to death and disaster with greater losses of seafarers and ships. Proper manning standards are vital to safety in these matters, and they are equally crucial on flag of convenience vessels.
The Norwegian manning proposals are not readily accepted by the trade unions in Norway. Indeed, trade unions from all over the world met in London last week and agreed to unite against the imposition of the Norwegian manning standards. They believe that they are, in some cases, lower than for flags of convenience and will lead to similar safety problems.
One considerable difference between the Norwegian approach and that of the Minister is that the Norwegians have announced that there will be a manning committee which will take account of ships' safety. Is the Minister prepared to set up such a committee to consider whether cuts in manning will affect safety? I assume that he asked himself such a question when he considered manning. I find the announcement in today's The Times startling. It says:
424
"Sproat to examine manning of ships."
We have been informed today that:
"The Department of Trade has begun a detailed investigation of Britain's 900-strong merchant fleet in an attempt to prove to shipowners and unions that the industry is seriously overmanned."
Did not the Department of Trade have such information when it made its conclusions of 18 March? Has it only just decided to conduct an inquiry? I have heard of making the judgment before conducting an investigation, but we assumed that when the Minister came to the House he had all those facts to hand and had discussed the issue with the owners and the unions. It is amazing that it has been announced today that he will set up an inquiry. That alarms everyone in the merchant fleet as the inquiry has been set up to convince the owners and the unions that the industry is overmanned. Apparently, the Minister is convinced. If that is so, has he come to that conclusion on practical information and if he has, why does he not present it for us all to see? We know what the inquiry is about—intervening on behalf of the owners to cut costs. It will be resisted strongly.
The Minister has not compared the manning levels of Panama and Liberia with ours. Moreover, it is no use giving us Norway's levels as it is not yet at the Liberian and Panamanian manning levels. We must see what happens to safety at those manning levels. The Minister should consider ship losses. In 1970, world losses were 600,000 tonnes whereas in 1980 it increased to 2·3 million tonnes. We now lose four times as many ships as we did in 1970. That has nothing to do with the weather. It is the result of deliberately sinking coffin ships for insurance purposes, the deliberate expansion of fleets and the failure to enforce safety standards. Ships sink all around our coasts and no one seems to give a damn about whether British or any other seamen are involved and no one carries out any investigations.
The researches of John Ruben shows that Panama now loses 64 ships a year. That is more than one each week. Greece loses 55 ships a year, Norway 10, Germany nine and the United Kingdom nine. Strict maritime control such as we have in our industry have led to a high safety record but flags of convenience lose four times as many ships as the average for OECD countries and eight to 10 times more than the traditional European fleets.
Flags of convenience, with their manning standards, substandard management and substandard nations which do not enforce proper standards, lead to the deaths of many thousands of seafarers—all in the name of free trade. What guarantee can the Minister give that, if we reduce ourselves to those standards, we might not experience exactly the same conditions and loss of life among our seafarers?
The Minister must give us much more convincing evidence about the difference in crew costs. The industry has always argued with the unions about crew costs. However, Malise Nicolson, who is the president of the General Council of British Shipping said:
"The CBGS accepts the criticism that in some cases UK crew costs are higher than those of European competitors but a levelling of these costs will not halt, let alone reverse, the decline of our fleet.
The basic fact is that the crew costs for European ships in general are hugely undercut by crew costs of the developing world whose seafarers do not seek such high standards of living."
The Government's answer is to cut the standard of living not only of seafarers but of workers in many other industries. It is the old Tory party fully at work.

425
What really incensed us was the Minister's reply to a question from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) on 18 March. The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister
"whether he proposes to take any further measures, in addition to those already announced, to reduce the cost burdens imposed on the shipping industry by regulations."
The Minister replied:
"In order to increase the competitiveness of the Merchant Navy, I have been considering the costs involved in proposed regulations relating to the occupational safety of seafarers. I have postponed the requirement in regard to aluminium ladders of access to and from ships until 1 April 1984."
Part of the solution to this great slump in our industry is to reduce the provision of aluminium ladders. The Minister went on:
"I am proposing … to replace the requirement to apply a slip-resistant surface to open deck areas used regularly for transit … to reduce the required lighting levels in certain areas aboard ship to those recommended by the International Labour Organisation."
Those proposals will reduce the safety cover of seafarers in an industry that has 35 times more accidents than manufacturing industry, and four times more accidents than the mining industry, which is considered to be very dangerous. The Minister's contribution to the decline in shipping is to reduce safety considerations, despite his Department's reports having recommended those safety measures in the 1960s, 1970s and as late as 1978. The course upon which he has embarked will increase the death and accident rate.
I have said a great deal this evening, but I wish the Minister to consider carefully his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, paragraph (iv) of which states:
" Not to apply the regulations to United Kingdom ships bare-boat chartered to foreign operators."—[Official Report, 18 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 292.]
Does that mean that the ship can carry a British flag and be divorced from its obligations under our legislation if it is chartered to a foreign operator? If that is true, it will be a green light to foreign operators to obtain a British flag, with all the advantages that that has, without having to observe the traditional safety considerations of the British shipping industry. It is another green light to reduce yet again the proportion of British shipping.
I know that the Minister has received a reply from my general secretary—Jim Slater— of the National Union of Seamen, making it clear that his reply to that question undermines the safety regulations of the industry and gives a green light to an industry that has relied on recommendations instead of statutory requirements. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central introduced statutory regulations for access. The union has always believed that safety considerations should be taken away from the Department of Trade and put into the hands of the Health and Safety Commission. That commission controls many Departments, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and there has been a decline in accidents. However, Departments that control safety are subject to commercial pressures. The Minister's reply proves conclusively that the Department has cut safety regulations in response to commercial pressures.
I do not understand how the Minister could have said that, when only a few days previously the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said, during a debate on health and safety:
426
"I assure the House that the Government are determined to ensure that we have an effective health and safety system. There is no truth in the scare stories that the Government intend to destroy what has been set up. The existing system has an all-party basis and we intend to keep it that way."—[Official Report, 11 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 1112.]
The Minister meant the health and safety legislation. He could not speak for the Department of Trade, but we have protested to the Department of Employment and referred it to the Health and Safety Executive because of the reduction in safety in an industry that has the highest rate of accidents and deaths.
The Government's answer to the decline in the merchant shipping industry seems to be that it can be stopped by the Government playing a non-interventionist role, a belief in the free market system and, presumably, further discussions with the industry. However, the industry will not want to discuss the matter further with the Government if these are the terms.
The Minister has had a letter from the general secretary of my union, making it clear that if he believes that the solution to our problems lies in reducing manning requirements, cutting safety standards and causing more death and accidents, and that that is the way forward for our industry, that is not acceptable. There is no point in having any dialogue with the Government. They are embarked on their course to cut costs at the expense of the safety of manpower in the industry. They have rejected the summary and recommendations of the NUS in its report "Heading for the Rocks", calling for intervention, planned trade and public ownership supported by the Labour party programme. I accept that the Government did not find that acceptable or palatable, but I find it objectionable, as I hope that the House will, that the Government wish to stop the decline in the fleet by building on the backs of injured and killed seafarers, and by reducing safety standards. That is unacceptable and is resisted by all unions, officers and ratings and, one would hope from the remarks made by the owners, all in the industry who refuse to go back to the conditions of the 19th century.
9.11 pm
Mr. Clinton Davis: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer), who normally speaks on shipping matters for the Opposition. for his unavoidable absence.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on having the good fortune to be able to raise this issue on the Adjournment and on speaking with that characteristic bluntness and common sense that is girded by great expertise. I hope that the Minister will take to heart some of my hon. Friend's comments.
I willingly pay that tribute to my hon. Friend, because he and I have had the pleasure of working together in the Department of Trade, he as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Trade. He made a powerful contribution to the discussions that took place over shipping during the period that he was in that position.
There are a number of common denominators that must mark any debate on shipping at the present time. One is that the merchant fleet is still of monumental importance to this country, as an island nation, for defence, trade and foreign earnings. A second common denominator is that the merchant shipping industry and its seafarers made a major contribution during the Falklands Islands campaign,

427
although what happened was infintely less than satisfactory and was an unhappy augury for the future, because, as the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association has reported; there were grave causes for disquiet during that campaign. I declare an interest in this, as I am an honorary member of that association.
The Minister is aware of this problem because of the evidence submitted to him by the association. Under the heading "The Merchant Navy in Defence", it said:
"It appears that the Department of Trade experienced difficulty in finding the necessary vessels, and from press reports it is apparent that there was a shortage of sea transport. We do not believe that the optimum level of fleet support for the Task Force was capable of being found from the United Kingdom"
That has never been rebutted, so perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to comment on that. It went on to say:
"It is ironic that the United Kingdom registered fleet was unable to provide the number of vessels needed. In one case, Bermuda registered tonnage was chartered from a company which at the same time had a ship trading with Argentina. It is nothing short of a scandal that companies which evade the tax and legal obligations of United Kingdom registration should be considered sufficiently loyal to be trusted with a role in the Task Force."
The Minister must answer that point tonight, because he has not answered it hitherto.
The third common denominator is the tragedy of the merchant fleet, which is in marked decline. I shall again put on record, as part of the background to this debate, the catalogue of disaster that has occurred since May 1979. The number of ships has fallen by 32 per cent.; tonnage has fallen by 36 per cent.; and more than 550 ships have been sold abroad, many to flag-of-convenience operators who are now in competition with the remainder of our fleet. In 1982 alone the number of ships fell by 13 per cent. and tonnage by 16 per cent. At the end of January this year, 16 per cent. of our registered fleet was laid up—four times as much as at the end of Jauary 1982. That is a sad situation. It is almost a situation of despair, yet the Minister's contribution has been primarily to attack the trade unions.
The Minister has been extremely abrasive during Question Time. If abrasiveness, arrogance and unwavering conceit were substitutes for policies, our merchant fleet would be doing very well under his guidance. Instead, he lives in a make-believe world. In this regard he apes the Prime Minister. It is never he who has a shred of responsibility for the disaster that has befallen the merchant fleet; it is always the international recession, the evil of trade unionism and the greed of seafarers.
The Minister lives in a world of slogans and very little common sense. He asserts unequivocally that market forces must determine the shape and size of the British merchant fleet. That is what he told me in answer to a written question only the other day. If the fleet is left to those market forces, how does the Minister perceive that it will be able to recover when the shipping markets improve? As I have already said, our ships will have been sold abroad or scrapped and our industry will simply be unable to cope with the competition. How will he replace the qualified seafarers? How will he deal with the institutions that train them? By then many of those institutions will probably have disappered or, at least, have been substantially run down.
The Minister's is a world of negativism. He rejects the ideas, based on considerable skill and expertise, that have
428
been put forward by both sides of industry, and, in turn, he is rightly condemned by both sides of industry. For him there is no real argument about public ownership having a public stake in the shipping industry, simply a rejection of that argument, and similarly with subsidies. He says that there is no departure from market forces, which dominate his thinking and have proved to be so catastrophic to the industry thus far.
The Minister's is a world of bare assertion, though not necessarily the naked truth. In a debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the Minister said of defence:
"Our assessment is that defence needs can still be met. This matter is at the heart of our current review of what lessons to learn from the Falklands".—[Official Report, 25 November 1982; Vol. 17, c. 1111.]
It is only an assessment that we can still meet our defence needs. That does not exactly have the ring of confidence.
Let us test what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the adequacy of the fleet for defensive purposes. What does he think should be the level of the fleet to be consonant with our defence requirements? What size of fleet, what type of ships and how many trained personnel are required? What is the position likely to be in five years, for example? Has the hon. Gentleman any idea what it will be if the current rundown of the fleet continues? What research is being undertaken by his Department, by universities or within the industry?
There are many lessons to be learnt from the Falklands, including the contribution that our seafarers have to make in future. However, there is no place for them on the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee. Tributes to the seafarers trip off the hon. Gentleman's tongue—it is easy to make them. He has paid glowing tributes, and rightly so, to the heroism of the merchant seamen who went to the Falklands, but why cannot they make a contribution to the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee? Is their expertise of no concern to the hon. Gentleman?
The committee is concerned with adaptations to new and existing ships to ensure that they can fulfil a role as a defence factor. It seems that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence consider the merchant seafarers to have no place on the Committee.
Another example of the Minister's negativism is that he is taking no action on flags of convenience, except in respect of those ships which are substandard—
Mr. Prescott: Or Russian.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman would not call the Russian fleet a flag of convenience. It is of interest that there is a tremendous contradiction between the way in which the Minister approaches the threat of Soviet shipping—I believe that it is a peripheral threat because it engages in unfair competitive standards—and the threat posed by flags of convenience. Why does the hon. Gentleman not condemn the unfair competitive standards of flags of convenience, such as lower wage rates, unsafe conditions on board ships and inadequate training? My hon. Friend has recited a catalogue of unfair standards. In flags of convenience there are often lower safety levels in ships which are not substandard. I hope that the Minister will comment on lower safety levels, as distinct from substandard ships.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister does not care.
Mr. Davis: What is the Minister doing to implement a proposal which I put to IMCO in 1977, and which was taken up, to establish a marine safety corps to Third world countries to develop higher safety standards? Is he pursuing that with the International Maritime Organisation?
My hon. Friend referred to the answer that was given by the Minister on 18 March. What consultation did he engage in before coming to the conclusion that the regulations could be changed in the way that he set out in his answer? Does he think that seafarers have no role in consultations which directly touch their everyday lives? If no agreement was reached about those matters, perhaps he would be kind enough to explain why. What was the view taken by the unions, or does he not care about that either?
I suggest that the Minister is playing a dangerous role here, because he is playing with people's lives and he does not attach enough importance to that. He is imbued with the doctrine of market forces. For generations Britain has taken a pride in the application of sound safety standards, even if they reduce competitiveness marginally. In the past Conservative Ministers have played a noble role in upholding that tradition, but this Minister seems determined to change it without consultation—almost unilaterally.
Mr. Prescott: The Minister is determined not only to change it, but—we await his reply—apparently without proper examination. He examines matters after he has reached his conclusion.
Mr. Davis: The Minister sets up working parties and all sorts of things, evidently, as my hon. Friend said, having reached his conclusion in advance. He must justify far more than he has in his written answer the peril—the increased peril—that will be faced by seafarers.
My hon. Friend has deployed powerful arguments in his indictment of the Minister, and I support them. I want to put several questions to the Minister and he will have plenty of time to answer—one hour and five minutes. First, is he satisfied with the research that is being done within and about the shipping industry? Second, if he is so satisfied, why is he unable to reply to the question that I put to him on 14 March and which I think is of some moment? I ask him how many owners had flagged out tonnage from and into the United Kingdom registry in annual periods from May 1979 onwards. His answer was:
"I regret that the information requested is not available."—[Official Report, 14 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 68.]
It is a matter of considerable concern to the British shipping industry to know what is happening about flagging out. If the Minister cannot answer, it is utterly shameful.
Third, has the Minister made a decision about the establishment of a think tank for the industry as was proposed by the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association? If not, why the slothfulness? Why cannot he get on and make a decision? That is of particular importance if there is a dearth of adequate research in the industry, as I believe to be the case, which, if anything, has become worse over the past three years, although I do not entirely blame the Government for that.
Fourth, why should there not be a higher level of United Kingdom flag involvement in the Norwegian sector of the North sea, when it is abundantly plain that Norwegian involvement in the British sector is vast by comparison with ours in the Norwegian sector? How would it possibly
430
affect our interests in the cross trades if we were to take seriously what has been happening? It is a one-off matter that affects our relations with Norway and the Minister ought to be doing something about it. Indeed, how does he reconcile that inertia with the countervailing action that has been taken by his colleagues in the Department in introducing the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 in order to take protective action against the United States?
Fifth, what are the Government proposing to do about the report on the employment of non-domiciled seafarers, to which my hon. Friend referred?
Mr. Donald Thompson (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Nothing.
Mr. Davis: Is it absolutely nothing? A consensus was reached in the industry on this matter in order to eradicate an injustice based on racism, about which the Minister apparently cares little or nothing.
Sixth, why should training costs continue to fall on British industry to a much greater extent than happens in other countries? If the Minister is so worried about Britain's waning competitiveness, what is he prepared to do about that?
Seventh, why does the Minister reject so peremptorily the provision of investment assistance, subject to proper safeguards and conditions, as submitted by the MNAOA and the National Union of Seamen?
Eighth, why is the Minister so dismissive of the contribution that can be made by the British seafaring unions? When I went to the Department of Trade, I had no more knowledge than the Minister. It was as well to listen to people who had a lifetime of service in the industry—the owners and the trade unions. The Minister began extremely well by convening a tripartite meeting at Windsor, which was regarded as a very good augery for the future. He listened to the contributions, and my understanding is that he was impressed by the contributions that were made by both sides of industry.
The tragedy is that the Minister has departed from that. There has been nothing like it since. Why is the Minister not prepared really to open the doors of his Department so that a proper debate can take place? The industry is at crisis point. Instead, the Minister has shrugged aside the trade unions and insulted them at every turn, and the suggestion that they are responsible for the decline of British industry is deeply resented. It is not too late to change, and it is never too late for anybody to admit errors. I have made many errors. I have not always agreed with the trade unions, by any manner of means. Sometimes they were right and I was wrong, and sometimes the owners were right and I was wrong. It is worth listening, because the unions have something worth while to say.
The Minister said in a statement on 18 March that he would set up a regular form of tripartite discussions with the Government. The General Council of British Shipping and the seafaring unions have told the Minister that they would welcome a continuing and regular form of tripartite discussions with the Government. He said:
"I regard this as a constructive suggestion."—[Official Report, 18 March 1983, Vol. 39, c. 291.]
That is fine, but the hon. Gentleman must prove that he is prepared to listen to other people. There is no point in having tripartite discussions if the Minister's ears are closed because they would then be just a formality.
Mr. Prescott: When the answer was given by the Minister, the unions had not been subjected to the

431
offensive response on the other matters. That has conditioned their response to further discussions, as the Minister knows from a letter from the unions.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. I was present at Question Time on 21 March. The Minister was offensive—I put it no higher than that—to the trade unions. If the Minister expects the unions to play a role in tripartite discussions, which I trust will take place, he must be a little more flexible, a little more realistic and a little more understanding of the role that they can play.
Lastly, what will the Minister do to staunch the flow of ships from the flag?
The Labour party proposed in the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1978–79 taking steps in clause 31 to stop undesirable foreign takeovers that were prejudicial to the national interest. The Conservative party stopped that when we lost the vote of confidence.
The Government have proposed nothing. I do not say that the injunctive effect of those proposals would have been a panacea by any manner of means, but it could have made a contribution to the problem now besetting the British shipping industry. The Minister must get the idea out of his mind that the crisis has developed solely because of the trade unions and the seafarers or that it is perhaps solely due to a joinder of matters, such as that factor and the international recession.
Of course the international recession has a part to play, and it is true that everyone is suffering, but that is no reason for inaction on the Minister's part. The hon. Gentleman has introduced a note of real confusion about manning costs. That is my judgment and that of the president of the General Council of British Shipping, Mr. Nicholson, who has rightly said that the Minister is seeking to compare our manning costs with those of flags of convenience and Third world countries. There is no way in which those two sets of costs bear comparison. Indeed, in his heart, the Minister knows that. Therefore, he has a lot to answer for, not only to me and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Kingston upon Hull, East, but to the nation and those on both sides of the industry who have given years of dedication and devotion to it. So far, the Minister's answers have been found grotesquely wanting.
9.37 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I should like to emphasise some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about flags of convenience. I have worked on ships sailing under flags of convenience and I can verify that safety conditions or regulations leave a lot to be desired. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) referred to the Falklands issue. I asked the Minister a question about two container ships that were transferred from the red ensign to flags of convenience at the time of that dispute so that they could carry on chartering or trading with the Argentine. I received a parliamentary answer that was typical of the Minister, saying that, as they had a charter to trade, all was well.
I am concerned because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has pointed out the British merchant fleet has declined in the past seven years from 1,636 to 900 vessels. I come from an area with one of the best marine and technical colleges in this country, if not
432
in the world, yet no training is taking place. If the reason for the decline in the British merchant fleet is the world recession, we shall not have the trained seafarers to sail the ships that will be needed for trade when, if ever, we get out of that recession.
West Germany has the same problem as this country, yet according to Lloyd's List of Tuesday 10 February it has increased training for seafarers. Lloyd's List states:
"West German shipping continues to place great emphasis on training qualified personnel. In all some 557 businesses concerned with shipping offer 1,737 training places. In 1982, 465 apprentices were accepted, an increase of 16 per cent. compared to 1981."
In Britain, the training colleges are being closed—south Tyneside faces that problem.
Mr. Prescott: And Hull.
Mr. Dixon: One of the most obscene articles I have ever seen appeared in The Times on Tuesday, 15 February. An article by Barrie Clement entitled "BSC is bypassing own ships" said:
"Foreign ships are being chartered by the British Steel Corporation while three of four of its own British-crewed vessels are laid up … But the corporation says it has no intention of changing its present policy to use its own vessels and other United Kingdom ships whenever it is commercially feasible to do so. The corporation has laid up three bulk ore carriers and has six foreign vessels on long-term charter; two are Norwegian, one of which sails under the Panamanian flag; another is French; two are registered in Hong Kong and one is German-owned but registered in Liberia."
The British Steel Corporation, a nationalised industry, is laying up its own British-built ships and chartering flags of convenience ships. That is obscene and the Minister should do something about it. I have no doubt that he will not. He should ensure that the British Steel Corporation uses British-crewed ships.
The Select Committee on Industry and Trade held a long session on the state of the British shipbuilding industry. In recommendation 5 of its report, it suggested that there should be co-ordination on shipbuilding and shipping between the various Government Departments. We look forward to such co-ordination. Britain must be one of the few countries in the world which has no maritime policy.
In Committee on the British Shipbuilders Bill, when we tried to discuss defence orders with industry Ministers, we were told that defence order had nothing to do with them and that we should discuss the matter with the Ministry of Defence. When we discussed the merchant shipping fleet, we were told by industry Ministers that that had nothing to do with them and was a matter for the Department of Trade. We need a co-ordinated maritime policy. When one considers that 98 per cent. of our trade enters or leaves Britain by sea it is essential not only to have a merchant fleet but the capacity to build and maintain it. I hope that the Minister will answer the questions asked so ably by my hon. Friends tonight. I hope that the Minister will be able to do something because the industry is in a parlous state. The sooner the Minister gets off his backside to do something positive about it, the better it will be for all concerned.
9.43 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): I share with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), with other Members and with many of the public, great concern about the United

433
Kingdom merchant fleet. That concern has been with me throughout the time I have had responsibility for shipping matters and naturally formed a major part of the response to the question I posed to the General Council of British Shipping and the seafaring unions about the lessons of the Falklands campaign and the future of the Merchant Navy.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that he hoped that there would be time for a full-scale debate about the future of the Merchant Navy. I would welcome such a debate and I am rather surprised that the Opposition have not made one of their supply days available for it. I look forward to debating this important subject at rather greater length than is possible this evening.
I must repeat what I have said previously—that the adequacy of the merchant fleet for defence purposes is kept under continual review by my right hon. and hon. Friends. In the considered opinion of the Ministry of Defence, the merchant fleet remains capable of meeting defence plans. I cannot emphasise that point too strongly. Although, after careful consideration, I rejected the two elements put to me—subsidy and protectionism—-that does not show any disregard for the health of the industry. On the contrary, I rejected them because they would have worsened rather than improved the position.
Mr. Clinton Davis: We know precisely what the Ministry of Defence has said, and what it must necessarily say. But what evidence does it have for saying so, in the light of the submissions from the unions about the inadequacies that occurred during the Falklands crisis—not only in the availability of shipping but in the training that took place between the Merchant Navy and Royal Navy to deal with everyday tasks that had to be fulfilled?
Mr. Sproat: Everything that the unions and the General Council of British Shipping have said on that matter has been taken fully into account in reaching the conclusion that the Merchant Navy is fully capable of meeting our defence plans.
It is often alleged that direct subsidies by other countries to their merchant fleets give them an unfair advantage. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) implied that. Apparently, subsidies are the reason for the growth of those fleets, and the lack of subsidies the reason for the decline of our fleets. It is said that we should introduce subsidies.
Yet direct operating subsidies to shipping are not common throughout the world. It is true that many shipbuilding industries receive large subsidies, but it would be a mistake to see them as subsidies to shipping industries. On the contrary, those subsidies are, to a considerable extent, responsible for the excess tonnage in the world and the unrealistically low level of freight rates.
To try to nullify the distortion caused by shipbuilding subsidies through introducing operating subsidies, thereby adding further distortion, would be not only extremely expensive but ineffective. It would inevitably lead to the introduction of subsidies by yet other countries. It would give no lasting benefit, but would merely place yet another burden on the already over-burdened taxpayer.
Mr. Prescott: The Minister obviously did not listen to what I was saying. Admittedly, I made a somewhat lengthy speech, but I did not argue for operating subsidies. Indeed, I have always argued against intervention money
434
for shipbuilding. We can intervene in more effective ways to secure traffic. Pouring in additional money has never been part of my argument.
Mr. Sproat: It may not have been part of the hon. Gentleman's argument this evening, but it has certainly been part of the argument that members of his union have put forward. It is an important argument. That is why I wanted to answer it directly this evening by saying that I reject it.
The extent to which the arguments on subsidies are fallacious are matched by similar fallacious arguments often on protectionism. There is, of course, widespread pressure for protectionism. In developing countries, widespread limitations on the freedom of shippers to choose the vessels to carry their liner cargoes do indeed exist, but the extent that it has reached can be easily exaggerated. Among the developed countries, which generate most of the world's liner cargoes, cargo reservation is very much the exception. The role of the United Kingdom must be to join hands with those countries which are working to resist the spread of such practices, not to adopt them ourselves.
I should be failing in my duty to the merchant fleet if I ceased to hammer home the importance to our fleet of the crosstrades. It is an argument that I have given the House before, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was good enough to mention, in reading out many of the splendid answers to questions which I have been giving the House recently. Of course, many in the shipping industry accept that argument, but it would appear that there are also others, as we have heard in the House this evening, who do not accept it. Therefore, I should like to explain it again, because it is so important.
United Kingdom shipping depends crucially on the crosstrading opportunities open to it. Over two thirds of its freight earnings come from trading between foreign countries. This is only possible because shipping worldwide is still to a considerable extent open, but in spite of this, we could be sure that if we denied competitive access to our cargoes to other countries' shipping, they would deny it to ours. We should then have contributed to a slide into protectionism that would harm our shipping interests greviously. For all our position as a trading nation, we just could not protect and sustain a fleet of the current size, despite the decline that has occurred, merely on the carriage of our own national trade. We could not do it, and the. House and the industry must face that fact. Those who urge the Government to turn towards protectionism in shipping are, in reality, whether they realise it or not, asking it to put at hazard the cross-trade shipping responsible for two thirds of our freight earnings, and all the jobs that depend upon those earnings. A protected fleet would be a smaller fleet.
Mr. Prescott: It is a crucial argument, and I do not deny it. Will the Minister tell us which countries he thinks would be a countervailing force if he were to adopt these policies? Norway gets much more from its crosstrades and has been able to maintain a protectionist interest around its own coasts, as we have seen in the North sea, with the development of maintaining its supply ships.
Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman does me the credit of saying that this is a serious argument, as indeed it is. I ask him to accept that many countries, certainly in the developed world, are under pressure at the moment to go

435
further down the protectionist road—for example, the United States. Many forces in the United States are urging greater protectionism. I well remember reading a speech by Ambassador Brock in Washington last January, when he said that if any other country were to go further down the protectionist road they—the Americans—would be forced to go further down that road.
Mr. Prescott: What about the Jones Act?
Mr. Sproat: The Jones Act is coastal trading. We are not talking about coastal trading, because the two thirds of British freight earnings that come from cross trading does not include cabotage within the United States. I would certainly like to see the Jones Act removed—we all would, of course—but that does not affect the argument that I am making now, which is that, if we were to go more protectionist, the United States would go even more protectionist than it has gone under the Jones Act. Furthermore, it is not true to say that there are overt statutory protectionist pressures on the supply vessels in the Norwegian sector of the North sea.
I have personally been into the matter in the greatest detail with the Minister for Commerce and Shipping in Norway. He has been over here. My officials have been with his officials. The fact is that, although the proportion of British supply vessels in the Norwegian sector of the North sea is very low—that is why I opened up the matter—it is not because there are overt or statutory protectionist measures by the Norwegian Government. On the contrary, the Norwegian Minister for Commerce and Shipping has said time and again that he would deplore and does deplore any such protectionist attitudes. Over the years, the protectionist attitudes of previous Socialist Governments in Norway have generated such an atmosphere of non-statutory protectionism that this has happened. There is absolutely no statutory protection of supply vessels in the Norwegian sector of the North sea, for the very good reason, which by implication the hon. Gentleman adduced, that over 90 per cent. of Norwegian freight earnings come from cross trading, as opposed to 68·2 per cent. in this country. Therefore, the Norwegians have even greater reason for believing in open trade. Only last week the Norwegian Minister, Mr. Skauge, whose sterling efforts to keep maritime trade as open as possible I warmly applaud, not only discussed with me the present situation there but reaffirmed Norway's commitment to open trading policy.
I shall go on from that important digression. We cannot discuss the freedom of shipping as if it affected shipping alone in this protectionist argument. We cannot do so. We are an island trading nation. We must rely on efficient shipping services, which of course means internationally competitive shipping services. I am convinced that we have to preserve international competition in shipping if in the long run we are to preserve international free trade in the merchandise that those ships carry.
Indeed, the arguments about protection and free trade are at bottom the same in shipping as in manufactured goods. Industries claim protection in the hope of perserving employment. Protection cannot do so in a general sense. The most that it can do is to shift unemployment from one industry to another, thereby generating further claims for further protection.
436
Our shipping industry is a national asset because it has built up a worldwide profitable trading position. That is its distinctive contribution to the national welfare. It would cease to be a national asset and would become a national liability if it had to rely on subsidies or protection, because either of those expedients would throw the burden of its problems onto other industries, and insult the maritime traditions of which the industry and the House are proud.
In keeping with that realistic approach, we must continue forcefully to argue the advantages of open trading in international and bilateral forums. It is in the nature of international shipping policy that it is not widely publicised. Complex international negotiations do not thrive by being thrust under a political spotlight.
However, it is hardly relevant to the debate on protectionism to give an account of what we are doing. I should like to do so now. For example, recently the United Kingdom played a leading role in establishing a system within the EC for monitoring the presence of non-commercial eastern bloc shipping on certain major routes serving the United Kingdom and other EC ports. We played the leading part in the development of the EC's common position on the United Nations liner conference code, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, although he got it the wrong way round by saying that the Brussels package was protectionist, whereas in fact it is the most we can do to open up trade as far as possible. We continue to play a major part in negotiations seeking to apply similar free trade principles in shipping relations with countries outside the Community.
Very importantly, we played the leading part in getting agreement on the Paris memorandum of understanding whereby 25 per cent. of all foreign ships coming into the ports of 14 European nations have been and are being monitored for safety standards since last summer and, if necessary, held up until deficiencies discovered are put right. This will probably prove to be the most important single measure to improve safety taken this century; and will certainly do far more than misconceived campaigns against open register.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hogg.]
Mr. Sproat: Especially important are our relations with the United States of America. The maritime countries of Europe and Japan, which form the consultative shipping group, have recently been holding discussions with the Americans on the dangers posed by all forms of protectionist shipping policies, and the need for reciprocal guarantees of competitive access to each others 'trades. For all the market economy countries involved in these negotiations, preserving efficiency in the seaborne transport of our goods to and from their markets is just as important as the quest for efficiency in manufacturing industry. That efficiency cannot be preserved except through competition, and I believe that we have an opportunity this year, in concert with our trading partners, to secure a more firmly assured future for competitive conditions in world liner shipping. This Government intend to make the most of that opportunity.
In my view, the future of our shipping industry can be assured only by its efficiency and ability to compete in world markets, and efficiency can be achieved and preserved only through competition. There are those who

437
still see the roots of our decline in the competitive advantages that flags of convenience or open registers are alleged to obtain from substandard vessels and cheap labour. Whoever talks abour open registers in this country must ask himself very carefully, "open to what?" Many people mean by flags of convenience, or open registers, any register which is open to foreign investment. Some people find it hard to remember that some 45 per cent. of the British Merchant fleet is beneficially owned abroad. If open registers were banned, 45 per cent. of the United Kingdom fleet might vanish overnight, and 45 per cent. of the jobs with it. It would be madness to wound and destroy ourselves in this way.
Mr. Clinton Davis: If, as the Minister says, there is such a vast amount of foreign capital invested in British ships, and presumably in British crews, how does he reconcile that with the argument that our manning costs are so impossibly high?
Mr. Sproat: Our manning costs are indeed, unfortunately, uncompetitively high in too many cases. What I am seeking to do is to make our merchant fleet more competitive so that we can ha1t the decline of the fleet, whether by vessels beneficially owned abroad or by vessels beneficially owned in this country. Of course, manning levels are not the only factor. We have a very good tax regime for merchant vessels, but the one has to be traded off against the other. What worries me is that the fleet is declining because the uncompetitive element is gaining the upper hand and owners are not finding it possible to operate as they did in the not too distant past under the conditions which are imposed upon them.
When I saw the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rising when I referred to flags of convenience or open register, about which he had been so critical, I wondered if he was about to explain to us why his Government did absolutely nothing that I can recall to stop this practice. We have had the Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department of Trade in the Labour Government—I had forgotten that—and the Labour Under-Secretary of State for Trade going on this evening about the evils of open registers, although I do not believe what they said. If they thought that the system was so evil, why did they not do something about it when they were in power? It is the most ludicrous form of hypocrisy to try to shift the blame on to someone else for aspects about which they themselves did so little when they were in power.
Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sproat: No, I must get on because my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is seeking a further debate that I am anxious to answer. I have given way three or four times already and my hon. Friend is beginning to get that pale and restless look. I do not want it to become any worse.
Mr. Dixon: What the Minister has said is quite untrue.
Mr. Sproat: It is a convenient deception—
Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sproat: —and for that reason a popular one—
Mr. Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your advice. If a serious accusation is made in the cut and thrust of debate, have hon. Members the right to reply to it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): If the Minister is not giving way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Sproat: I have listened for well over an hour to Opposition speeches attacking the Government on issues about which, to the best of my recollection, the Labour Government did absolutely nothing—certainly nothing effective.
Mr. Prescott: We are trying to tell you what we did, you arrogant man.
Mr. Sproat: I propose to get on, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North can introduce his extremely important debate before the House has to close down for the night.
It is a convenient deception, and for that reason a popular one, to suppose that all open register vessels flout international safety requirements. Those that do ought to be dealt with, can be deal: with and are being dealt with through international agreements on port state action of international safety standards. It is wrong to attribute to open registers the competition from the comparatively low wages of Third world crews. Crews from many developing countries can man vessels of any register competently and safely at wages which, though low by the standards of developed countries, are high by the standards of their home countries.
Clearly, wage costs for crews from developing countries will continue to pose difficulties for our fleet, just as they do for those of other developed countries, but much of our competition is from developed countries themselves—a point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East failed to face when he opened the debate.
We should certainly be able to meet that competition, but how can our merchant fleet organise itself to do so? What is needed in this area is for management and unions to deal effectively with unnecessarily high operating costs, such as the overmanning which far too often puts our fleet at a competitive disadvantage. I say that there are far too many cases because we have taken a wide sample of comparative costs and have found that in too many cases our vessels are overmanned by comparison with the best of our European competitors.
Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister give examples?
Mr. Sproat: The absurd allegation has been made that I am urging reductions in manning below acceptable safety levels or adopting the numbers and standards practised by some flags of convenience countries. That is just not true. I am not saying that. I am saying that in many cases, although not in every case, we are overmanned by comparison with many north European crews, such as those of Norway, Germany and Belgium—countries which have exemplary safety standards. In some cases, the difference is as much as 25 per cent.
Mr. Prescott: Give us some examples.
Mr. Sproat: Those unnecessary costs are compounded—
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to rabbit on from a departmental brief and refuse to give way to Opposition Members who really understand these things?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Sproat: Not only is it not a point of order for the Chair. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has been here for only about five minutes, it is not a point of order for anyone.
Mr. Dixon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sproat: These are some of the factors behind our competitiveness—
Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that when an Adjournment debate began early it would continue until 10.30 unless a further Adjournment debate was put down before 8 o'clock, in which case, if the first Adjournment debate folded before 10.30, the second could then take place. Am I to understand that the Minister is now trying to hurry this Adjournment debate because his hon. Friend put down another subject before 8 o'clock?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not responsible for the length of the Minister's or any other hon. Member's speech. If this Adjournment debate finishes before 10.30 pm, we shall get on to the next one; if it does not, the House will adjourn.
Mr. Dixon: Do I take it that, when the Minister finishes, this Adjournment debate finishes? Cannot other hon. Members continue and answer some of the points the Minister has made?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall see about that when we get to it.
Mr. Sproat: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to give the maximum number of hon. Members the opportunity to air the maximum number of issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North applied for another Adjournment debate early this evening. He is entitled to have it if possible.
Mr. Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) made the point that an hon. Member must apply for another Adjournment debate before a specified time. The Minister appears to be under the impression that he should conclude his speech to make way for someone else to have another Adjournment debate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made his application before 8 pm in accordance with the usual procedure for a second Adjournment debate. We have not yet reached the second Adjournment debate; we are still on the first one.
Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke about safety. The Government have a responsibility for safety at sea, part of which is to ensure that safety and environmental regulations are realistic and appropriate. I continue to keep them under review.
The House will know that I have recently taken several initiatives. I shall give two examples. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that—
Mr. Prescott: Sedentary? The Minister will not give way.
Mr. Sproat: I have already given way three or four times. The answer is yes. It has been discussed and it has been agreed. Yes. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Prescott: No, it does not.
Mr. Sproat: First, I have set up two working groups that include representatives both of shipowners and unions. They are to study ways of removing unnecessary cost burdens concerning equipment and crew accommodation when ships transfer from a foreign flag to the United Kingdom flag. Such transfers are in our national interest. The working groups' aim is to facilitate those transfers by avoiding unnecessary replacement of foreign equipment which complies with adequate but different standards.
Secondly, I have examined the programme of regulations that we have made, or are proposing to make, to protect seamen at work aboard ship. As a result, I have agreed to some changes to reduce cost burdens which promised little or no benefit. That accords fully with a recent approach from the National Maritime Board, which represents both sides of the shipping industry, that any further occupational health and safety regulations should be subject to cost-benefit analysis. I must emphasise that that marks no departure from the undertaking that I gave to the House on 6 April last year to ensure that seafarers should, as far as conditions afloat permit, enjoy a level of protection which is no less than that afforded to workers ashore under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. To that end, we continue to work closely with the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. I can assure the House that efficiency is not being sought at the expense of safety.
A Government cannot reverse the fortunes of the shipping industry alone when the conditions within which the industry operates and the costs it has to meet are not set by the Government, but it would be wrong to overlook the way in which successful counter-inflation policies have given direct help to the shipowner in keeping down his operating costs. As I have said, I am now engaged in a wide ranging exercise to remove as many costly regulatory burdens from the industry as is consistent with safety. No British Government that I know of have done more to lessen the load of regulations within the bounds of safety.
Protectionism and subsidy will not help. It is the efforts of those involved in the industry that will safeguard their own future in an open trading environment. The ability of the Government to contribute is therefore limited, but I am anxious that we should do what we can that is sensible. There have been tripartite discussions before. The Government stand ready to help the two sides of the industry to identify where and how costsavings can be made, if they wish it and if they accept that the responsibility for action lies with them. I hope that those involved do not adopt such an entrenched position that we cannot talk again. We owe it to the merchant fleet, to those engaged in it, to the country as a whole and to our maritime heritage to do so.
I was especially sorry to read in today's newspapers that the National Union of Seamen will withdraw on 30 September from its agreement with the General Council of British Shipping permitting the employment of foreign ratings on British ships, with the apparent intention to pressure British shipping lines to dismiss foreign ratings and to replace them with British ones. Yet again we

441
encounter the fallacy that a failure of international competitiveness can be cured by such means, but actions that raise the cost of operating British ships—
Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sproat: —will mean fewer jobs, not more. I hope that the National Union of Seamen means it when it says that it wishes to stem the decline of the British fleet. I believe that it does, but it can demonstrate that only by striving to reduce the cost of operating under the British flag, not to raise it, as this and, sadly, so many of its actions have tended to do.

Buy British
10.15 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I wish to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister a very important subject and to enlist his support and that of the Government. We must encourage people in this country, when they go shopping and buy their consumer goods, to think British. I do not suggest for one moment that people should buy goods just because they are British, but I do suggest that before people make their purchases they should look at what is on offer, and if British goods are as good as and cost the same as foreign goods, they should think before they buy and hopefully, they will make the decision to buy British.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way, because there is not enough time. The hon. Gentleman has taken up enough parliamentary time already.
Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister sat down peremptorily following the previous debate, not having answered any of the points that were put to him.
Mr. John Prescott: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was giving way.
Mr. Davis: Should not the Minister have spent rather more time in dealing with a proper and serious debate and not displayed such a lack of courtesy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Marlow: For some time many people in this country thought that it was clever and sophisticated to buy foreign goods. A radical, chic feeling had got around that foreign goods were somehow better than British goods. But during the past few years there has been almost a second industrial revolution in Britain, and although it may have been true that some British goods were not as good as foreign goods, and some British quality was not up to the standard of foreign competition, much has happened recently to reassure the British public. The latest cars produced by British Leyland—the Metro and the Maestro—are way above the quality and standard that we have come to expect from British Leyland, and well above the quality and standard of foreign competition. So the old idea that there was something clever and fancy about foreign goods is no longer the case. British is now best.
We all know the sad story of the housewife who comes back from her weekly shopping trip, parks her Spanish-assembled Fiesta in the drive and staggers in under the load of her shopping basket. It contains French apples, Dutch cheese, Irish butter and far eastern clothing. She puts it down beside her Italian washing machine, turns on her Japanese television set, wrings her hands in anguish at the sight of her unemployed son, and puts her head in her hands in despair at the thought of her husband being threatened with redundancy. All that she must do is to think. Why does she spend all this money on foreign manufactures and food when she could buy better stuff that is made in Britain?
All that the British consumer needs to do each week throughout the year is to spend 4 per cent. more on British

443
manufactures and consumer goods. By doing that we would increase the number of jobs in the United Kingdom by 350,000, which would have direct and indirect effects. It would reduce the burden of unemployment pay, increase the amount of earnings brought home by people, on which they would pay tax, and our good friend the Chancellor could allow us to keep £2·5 billion more of our money. By spending that money in Britain we would benefit our balance of payments to the extent of £900 million a year.
It is a fact that 82 per cent. of purchases are decided by the woman. I say this to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knowing what an attractive and glamorous man he is, because I am sure that he in particular will be able to persuade the women in this country to think British before they shop.
About 51 per cent. of toys and games for our children are imported. Why? What is the matter with British toys and games? About 45 per cent. of dry irons bought by the British housewife are imported. I understand that for a long time they came from eastern Europe, and there were unfair trading factors that should be taken into account. There were difficulties because goods from eastern Europe passed through West Germany, and as we are in the Common Market that caused difficulties. I ask my hon. Friend to address himself to those difficulties. About 71 per cent. of typewriters are imported and 55 per cent of footwear is imported. Again, there has been unfair competition. I know that my hon. Friend and the Government are tackling these problems as best they can, but we still have some way to go.
Some British companies have been helpful. Marks and Spencer has wherever possible worked the policy of buying from British manufacturers. In many lines, 80 per cent. and sometimes 90 per cent. of its goods are manufactured in the United Kingdom. Where it finds some difficulty in supplying goods that the consumer requires from United Kingdom manufacturers, it may initially purchase the goods overseas, but having done so it goes to the British manufacturer with the item in question and says "Look, can you make this?" If the British manufacturer can approach the price of the foreign competition, Marks and Spencer will do all that it can to get British goods into its stores rather than foreign goods, because it sees the virtues of the policies that I am putting forward.
I have already spoken about British Leyland. There were vast problems—both of industrial relations and of products. The problems of products have been overcome. The problems of industrial relations, despite the hiccups that we are having, are surely a thing of the past.
I should like my hon. Friend, with his right hon. Friends in the Government, to help in several particular aspects. First, I should like him to spread the message in the powerful way that he can, and the powerful way in which the Government have spread the message, to think British before buying. Second, I should like my hon. Friend to persuade his right hon. Friends to ensure that, wherever possible, when it comes to public purchasing policy by nationalised industries and Government Departments, we should persuade these bodies to think, and wherever possible to buy, British. I know that much is done at the moment, but the further we can move in this direction, where the quality and the price are as good, the more good we shall do for our own country. I know that
444
there are difficulties with EC regulations and GATT, but if we adopt the same processes as those adopted by the French we shall do ourselves a world of good.
Third, I think that we shall have to look carefully at our industrial policies, and I should like my hon. Friend to take this up with his right hon. Friends, when we are seeking to attract foreign investment into the United Kingdom. We must be very careful that we do not attract overseas competition to our manufacturers when we are doing a good job in a stable or shrinking market. Where we can supply our own market with our own manufactures, we do not want to be over-solicitous in bringing in foreign manufacturers. At the very least, we should have some sort of clearing house, so that before we give grants to any foreign manufacturer wanting to set up in this country we have a pretty clear picture of the industrial situation in that aspect of manufacturing, of where our producers are standing and of what they can do to improve their position. We should consider all that before we seduce somebody to set a plant in the United Kingdom.
Another aspect that I think is important is origin marking. I have said that so much footwear, so many dry irons and so many consumer durables come from foreign countries. There are many people, and I know many of my constituents, who would like to buy British goods. However, even with the changes introduced last year on origin marking, they sometimes find it difficult to know whether the goods were produced here or elsewhere. I know that the Minister's hon. Friend is looking at this problem, and I am sure that he will come forward with some positive proposals.
Another area of concern—I believe that the Government have a Green Paper in hand, and the sooner we see it the better—is the importation of counterfeit, substandard or dangerous goods. United Kingdom manufacturers are subject to all the regulations of the United Kingdom, as are factories operating in the United Kingdom. Our labour force is properly paid, properly supervised and works in a safe and secure environment. We do not know whether that happens overseas, nor do we know whether the overseas products are safe and secure. We must introduce a system to ensure that we do not have unfair and, more importantly, unsafe competition from overseas manufacturers.
I have made some important points, and I know that my hon. Friend is sympathetic. I conclude with one message: "Forget what you thought in the past. We need our own people to buy our own goods. We need the Government to help our people to identify our own goods. British goods may have been a music hall joke in the past, but they are not now. They are good and better. Our factories are more effective and efficient than they have been for many a year. Go out, do your shopping, look and think before you buy, and if you possibly can, buy British."
10.26 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on his fast thinking and fast footwork in seizing the opportunity of the slacker-than-usual business in the House to bring this extremely important matter before us, even at this comparatively late hour. I also congratulate him on his splendidly patriotic speech. I hope that everyone, before purchasing any goods, will indeed think British and remember my hon. Friend's tale about those who never think British and are

445
surprised and appalled when they see the consequences of their actions multiplied many hundreds and thousands of times coming home to members of their families. I am glad that my hon. Friend took this opportunity to put forward his points in the way he did.
It is often asked, "Will not the Government give a stronger lead and perhaps mount their own campaign to persuade people to buy British wherever possible?" That was one of the implications of my hon. Friend's remarks. I confirm that it makes very good sense—the best sense—to buy British when British is best. I am glad that that is increasingly the case. As my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, recently said:
"Only the best is good enough for Britain's shoppers".
Wherever I, my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State go, we encourage people to buy British.
My hon. Friend raised the important question of origin marking. The present regulations cover a wide range of goods and were introduced only last year. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs is at present reviewing these regulations with a view to extending their scope, and I know that he will take into account the strong views that my hon. Friend has expressed.
446
My hon. Friend also mentioned Marks and Spencer, which stocks more than 90 per cent. British goods. When mentioning that splendid example, people often ask, "Will the Government take measures to require other retailers to sell more British products?" We all wish that they would, but the Government will not require other retailers to act in this way because we firmly believe in an open market, and it would be wrong to dictate to the retailers. They must be left to decide what goods they stock.
I have already said that the Prime Minister rightly exhorts us all to buy British. It may well be asked "What are the Government doing to get the public sector to buy more British goods?" It is clear that the vast majority of public sector purchases are already met from 'United Kingdom sources as a result of the value for money they offer. For example, in 1981, Government Departments purchased 96 per cent. of the goods and services they required from British firms—
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Churches
  Churches
TRADE
  Portugal
  Portugal
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Coal Merchants (Code of Practice)
  Coal Merchants (Code of Practice)
  Companies Acts (Investigations)
  Companies Acts (Investigations)
  Exclusive Purchasing Agreements
  Exclusive Purchasing Agreements
  Falkland Islands (Merchant Ships)
  Falkland Islands (Merchant Ships)
  Light Dues
  Light Dues
  Estate Agents Act 1979
  Estate Agents Act 1979
  British Airways (Financial Target)
  British Airways (Financial Target)
  South Africa (British Companies)
  South Africa (British Companies)
  L. Landers Ltd.
  L. Landers Ltd.
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
PRIME MINISTER
  Disabled Persons (Employment Regulations)
  Disabled Persons (Employment Regulations)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Portsmouth Prison
  Portsmouth Prison
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Foreign Nationals (Asylum)
  Foreign Nationals (Asylum)
  Solitary Confinement
  Solitary Confinement
  Brixton Prison (Report)
  Brixton Prison (Report)
  Tactical Intervention Force
  Tactical Intervention Force
  Mr. Papusoiu
  Mr. Papusoiu
  European Parliament (Elections)
  European Parliament (Elections)
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Prisoners (Drugs)
  New Scotland Yard
  New Scotland Yard
  Mr. M. S. G. (Immigration Appeal)
  Mr. M. S. G. (Immigration Appeal)
  Civil Defence (Volunteers)
  Civil Defence (Volunteers)
  Ex-drug Dependents (Prisons)
  Ex-drug Dependents (Prisons)
  Vehicle Parking (London)
  Vehicle Parking (London)
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Polish Nationals
  Polish Nationals
  Royal Observer Corps (Monitoring Posts)
  Royal Observer Corps (Monitoring Posts)
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983
  Draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Racial Attacks
  Racial Attacks
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomatic Service (Recruitment)
  Diplomatic Service (Recruitment)
  Executions
  Executions
  Uganda (Asian Refugees)
  Uganda (Asian Refugees)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Rev. Dr. Philip Morgan
  Rev. Dr. Philip Morgan
  Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council
  Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council
ENERGY
  Standing Charges (Gas and Electricity)
  Standing Charges (Gas and Electricity)
  Nuclear Power (Employment Implications)
  Nuclear Power (Employment Implications)
WALES
  Ophthalmology (Waiting Times)
  Ophthalmology (Waiting Times)
  Health Authorities (Consultants)
  Health Authorities (Consultants)
  Patients (Waiting Times)
  Patients (Waiting Times)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Medical Students (Hospital Duties)
  Medical Students (Hospital Duties)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Voluntary Projects Programme
  Voluntary Projects Programme
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Live Food Animals
  Live Food Animals
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Sports Council
  Scottish Sports Council
  Mr. Ken Murray (Political Speech)
  Mr. Ken Murray (Political Speech)
  Sewerage System
  Sewerage System
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  House Building Programme
  House Building Programme
  Paraldehyde
  Paraldehyde
  Employment Prospects
  Employment Prospects
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Remand Statistics
  Remand Statistics
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Rating System
  Rating System
  Small Business Sector
  Small Business Sector
  Employment Creation
  Employment Creation
  Tayside (Tourism)
  Tayside (Tourism)
  European Community (Jobs)
  European Community (Jobs)
  Housing Stock (Statistics)
  Housing Stock (Statistics)
  Directors of Social Work
  Directors of Social Work
  Bonnington Mills
  Bonnington Mills
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Newbattle College, Midlothian
  Newbattle College, Midlothian
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Emergency Planning Staffs
  Emergency Planning Staffs
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill
  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill
  Rhenigidale, Harris (Road Construction)
  Rhenigidale, Harris (Road Construction)
  Whisky Distilling Industry
  Whisky Distilling Industry
  Local Authorities (Capital Allocation)
  Local Authorities (Capital Allocation)
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Industry Act 1972 (Assistance)
  Industry Act 1972 (Assistance)
  Drug Dependants (Hostels)
  Drug Dependants (Hostels)
  Students (Diabetic Allowance)
  Students (Diabetic Allowance)
  Electricity (Standing Charges)
  Electricity (Standing Charges)
  School Books
  School Books
  Milk Prices
  Milk Prices
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Illegal Caravan Parking
  Illegal Caravan Parking
  Hospital Patients (False Imprisonment)
  Hospital Patients (False Imprisonment)
  Radar Guns
  Radar Guns
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members of Parliament (Salaries and Allowances)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries and Allowances)
ENVIRONMENT
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  Stockport (Ministerial Visit)
  Stockport (Ministerial Visit)
  Non-traditional Dwellings
  Non-traditional Dwellings
  Building Materials Industry
  Building Materials Industry
  Conference Centre, Storeys Gate
  Conference Centre, Storeys Gate
  Elderly Persons (Home Repairs Exhibition)
  Elderly Persons (Home Repairs Exhibition)
  Residential Houseboats
  Residential Houseboats
  Assured Tenancies Scheme
  Assured Tenancies Scheme
  Domestic Central Heating
  Domestic Central Heating
  Midland Hotel, Manchester
  Midland Hotel, Manchester
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  London-Birmingham Railway (Exhibition)
  London-Birmingham Railway (Exhibition)
  Cycling (Accident Rates)
  Cycling (Accident Rates)
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  British Rail (Borrowing Limits)
  British Rail (Borrowing Limits)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
  Taxation and Rates
  Taxation and Rates
  Cohabitation (Taxation)
  Cohabitation (Taxation)
  Budget Proposals
  Budget Proposals
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Student-Staff Ratios
  Student-Staff Ratios
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
INDUSTRY
  Computer Aided Design Centre
  Computer Aided Design Centre
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Trades Unions (Membership)
  Trades Unions (Membership)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Divers
  Divers
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
DEFENCE
  Port Stanley (Harrier Crash)
  Port Stanley (Harrier Crash)
  Unemployment Statistics (West Midlands)
  Unemployment Statistics (West Midlands)
  Arapaho
  Arapaho
  Hunt Class Vessels
  Hunt Class Vessels
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Ex-senior Officers (Employment)
  Ex-senior Officers (Employment)
  Air Publications and Forms Store
  Air Publications and Forms Store
  Sir Tristram
  Sir Tristram
  "World in Action" (Service Personnel)
  "World in Action" (Service Personnel)
  Censorship
  Censorship
  War Correspondents
  War Correspondents
  Telemines and Torpedoes
  Telemines and Torpedoes
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Journalists
  Journalists
  Berlin (Military Government)
  Berlin (Military Government)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Pancreas Transplants
  Pancreas Transplants
  Weekly Spending Power
  Weekly Spending Power
  Abortion Clinics (Counselling)
  Abortion Clinics (Counselling)
  Abortion Act 1967 (Monitoring)
  Abortion Act 1967 (Monitoring)
  Hospital Bed Norms
  Hospital Bed Norms
  Medication (Prices)
  Medication (Prices)
  Taxis
  Taxis
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  National Health Service (Efficiency)
  National Health Service (Efficiency)
  Operational Strategy (Working Paper)
  Operational Strategy (Working Paper)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Contraception
  Contraception
  Westminster pastoral Foundation
  Westminster pastoral Foundation
  Family Planning Clinics
  Family Planning Clinics
  Welfare Foods
  Welfare Foods

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.

Lord Gallacher
John Gallacher, Esquire, having been created Baron Gallacher, of Enfield in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Jacques and the Lord Oram.

University Grants Committee and Student Intakes
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jacques: 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 seven universities have been "fined" by the University Grants Committee for taking in too many students last autumn; and if so whether they consider that this is a satisfactory method of controlling university finance and in the interests of the students.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I understand that the University Grants Committee has decided to make an adjustment in its 1982–83 grant allocations to seven universities in the light of their levels of student intake. The Government are content that the committee should take what action it considers necessary to protect academic standards and the overall balance of provision.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer to my Question, and I put to him two supplementaries. First of all, were the universities acquainted with the targets that they were expected to meet? At least one university says that it has been fined for something it knew nothing about. Second, is it Government policy to refuse admission to well qualified students just to meet a target?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I understand it and I have no reason to doubt it—all the universities were informed. In fact, UGC wrote on 10th December 1982 to 10 universities, and the other three obviously met the criteria. I understand that all the seven I mentioned in my original Answer were written to on 10th December. As far as Government policy is concerned, it is to try to provide education at this level for everybody, but a lot of people find difficulty in getting into the first university of their choice.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I declare an interest as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Keele, which is one of the seven referred to in this Question. Is it not in fact the case that these universities are to suffer retrospective penalties for exceeding, in the year 1982–83, student intake numbers that were not specified as targets to which they would be required to adhere? Is it not also the case that in their evidence to the Select Committee in another place the UGC stated that if these numbers were exceeded they would wish to discuss the matter with the university concerned, and that no such discussions took place before these penalties were imposed?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I understand it they were indeed warned that this would happen—that the fact that they were prepared to take this number of extra students would obviously have an effect on what was going to happen to them for the next three years. I think it fair to point out that there is a lot of talk about penalties and fines, but in fact the UGC has decided to make an adjustment in grant which will not be more than the additional fee income the universities concerned are receiving in respect of the extra students they have admitted. So I do not think it can be described as anything too punitive.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he approves of the logic of the UGC, which wrote to one of the universities in question to say that the money was being removed because they believed that the admission of these students would diminish that university's contribution to research? Does the Minister believe that the UGC is right in believing that there is an exact equation between the number of students in a class and the amount of research done by the teacher? If he does not believe it, could he call the attention of the UGC to the fact that this kind of logic is widely resented?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I have no evidence of the letter to which my noble friend refers, but, although, I am not in a position to dispute this, I should be very surprised, because one of the points of the UGC's letter was that the whole point of this was to aid research. I hope that they took this into account.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain to the House exactly how it would safeguard academic standards to withdraw grant from universities which have the temerity to take in a few additional students? Surely it will have exactly the opposite effect.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think it is a question of a few extra students. In fact, the degree to which each university is over-recruited above the steady-state intake that the UGC estimates each institution needs in order to reach its target varies from 11 per cent. to 24 per cent.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I, too, declare an interest as President of the University College of Wales, Cardiff, and also on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who has a similar position in regard to Aberystwyth? Is not the admission of these students by the colleges on whose behalf I speak an

1557
indication, at any rate in the view of the university authorities, that they were fit and proper persons to enter into and carry out graduate courses at the university? Is not the effect of this stringency to deprive hundreds of students, fit and worthy to be university students, of that opportunity?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I said earlier, I do not think that every student in this country can get into the university of their first choice. This happens on a very large scale.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, will the noble Earl give us a piece of information which many Members of this House believe is central to the whole issue? How many well-qualified students in the current academic year have failed to find placement in any university in the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that I shall have to write to the noble Lord with that information.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would honour me by answering my question as to whether the denial of opportunity to students already admitted into the university would be a penalty inflicted upon those students.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it might be a disadvantage to them. I would go as far as saying that.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister please clarify something for me? I find some of the answers a little confusing. Is it or is it not still the Government's policy to restrict the number of students, even at this time when 18 and 19 year-olds are at a peak? If it is still their policy to restrict the number of students, why are they claiming credit for the increased intake into polytechnics? Can we please have an explanation?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this decision has been taken by the University Grants Committee, and not by the Government. But I think we should get this into perspective. I think it is 13·2 per cent. of the age range of 18 to 20 years old who are participating in higher education. This rate has increased steadily under this Government, despite the fact that the size of the relevant age group has been increasing. I think that it might not be a bad thing to point out that spending on higher education and research in 1979–80 was about £2½ billion. I use the expression billion as meaning one thousand million. The department's programmes provide for £1 billion more to be spent on higher education and research this year than was spent in 1979–80.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl has not dealt fully with the point on consultation raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Can the noble Lord say whether or not consultation can now take place, and whether there is provision for some form of appeal by the universities concerned?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, I really thought I had answered the question. The UGC wrote on 10th December 1982. It then considered the responses that
1558
it received from the universities, and wrote again to the seven on 23rd February. If they are to review their student numbers over the next few years, I am sure there is room for more correspondence.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that the information in his possession is not the same as that in mine? Is it not also the case that the University Grants Committee have threatened to impose further penalties for the year 1983–84 without deeming it necessary to indicate the number of admissions to be aimed at in that year?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think the whole thing in fact arose from what the numbers were going to be in 1983–84—or was it 1984–85? I think it was 1984–85. The UGC wrote to the universities concerned at the end of 1982 seeking information about their intakes for 1982 and their plans for reducing their 1983 and 1984 intakes consistent with achieving their targets by 1984–85. Having considered the universities' responses, the UGC decided that the intake patterns for these universities indicated that they were likely to exceed their targets by a substantial margin. The committee therefore decided to make a small adjustment in their grant. However, the UGC has said that it will be studying the intake numbers for October 1983 before making any revision of the 1983–84 recurrent grants announced in February

Vandalism on School Premises
2.58 p.m.
Lord Gainford: 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 was the cost of repairing the damage done by vandals on school premises during the last period for which figures are available.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this is not collected centrally.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that answer, which is unfortunately not very informative. May I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government would consider an investment in encouraging the media to pay a tribute to the many orderly schools that are very successful throughout this country, and not to create a false impression by publishing a few lurid events?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that the vandalism is really the responsibility of the individual local education authorities. I should have thought that at the present time they would be rather loath to part with any of their money in order to sponsor anything in the local media. But I thoroughly agree with my noble friend that any good publicity about things that are going right is very worth while.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in view of his reference to the local education authorities, will the noble Earl the Minister agree with me that a number of the acts of vandalism to school buildings and other property are not perpetrated by pupils or former pupils of the schools in question? Will he accept that there is a direct relationship between such acts of vandalism and unemployment among young people? Finally, can he give the House some assurance that such schemes as community policing, and other community-based projects for providing socially acceptable activities for young people, are having a beneficial effect on this very serious problem?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has hit one very good point on the head, in that the figures referred to in the Question are not collected nationally because it is very difficult to establish, first, what is, and what is not, vandalism, and, secondly, who is responsible. I can draw your Lordships' attention to a very useful document entitled, Vandalism in Schools and Colleges, which is Broadsheet No. 12, issued by the Department of Education and Science, and the Welsh Office, and which is available in your Lordships' House. It contains many very interesting points about involving the local community. I should like to quote just one of the points:
"Would local meetings with parents and other representatives from the community assist in devising and providing activities and supervision for young people out of school hours".
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Earl the Minister not accept that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, is indeed vital, in so far as all parts of the media seem to concentrate on the deleterious effects of school activities? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also raised a very important point—and here I speak with considerable experience, having started such a scheme in the London Borough of Ealing, involving young policemen becoming associated with as many schools as possible in the borough. This had a beneficial effect on the students, and it acted as a deterrent to those who were trying to damage schools.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it is rather sad that I have to wait until the last day before the Recess before I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, says in one of his supplementary questions.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman the Minister whether guard dogs are ever used to prevent vandalism? Is he aware that in the last few years many millions of pounds have been wasted by acts of arson on schools in the Doncaster area?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not the least idea of the answer to the supplementary question of my noble kinsman; nor can I give any undertaking to write to her, because, as I said in my original reply, these facts and figures are not centrally collected.

EEC Directive on Water Quality
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: 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 are satisfied that water authorities will be able to fulfil the standards contained in the EEC directive on water quality when it comes into effect in 1985.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, water authorities will be able to comply with the provisions of the EC directive relating to the quality of water for human consumption by July 1985. Certain derogations and delays are specifically permitted in the directive. The Secretary of State will not allow such derogations or delays where is is thought that public health might be endangered.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister must be aware that the reports that have been coming from the Department of the Environment and the National Water Council show that there is very serious concern regarding nitrate levels in water. Evidence shows quite clearly that the nitrate levels are rising steadily, owing to an increase in the use of fertilisers. Does the Minister not recognise that there is a real need to monitor very carefully the findings and the evidence in his department regarding pure water supplies, to make quite sure that we are conforming to EEC nitrate levels, which in some water authority areas are now at the maximum level allowed?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her supplementary question. As I said in my original Answer, derogations are allowed under Article 9 of the directive. There is no doubt that in various quarters concern has been expressed over rising nitrate levels. These are treatable at a cost, and the medical evidence that we have at present does not lead us to believe that there is any cause for concern. But, naturally, we are watching very carefully indeed the progress of research in this particular respect. The use of nitrate fertilisers of course dramatically increases crop yields, but as yet it has not been shown to be a matter for serious concern in relation to water sources.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while there is of course anxiety about the rising trend of nitrate levels in drinking water supplies, the standards set by the EEC are significantly higher than those set by the World Health Organisation, and that there is no certainty that there is a medical necessity to reach such a very high standard.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend, with his great knowledge of water, is absolutely correct. In the EEC directive that we are discussing the maximum permissible nitrate level is, I understand, 50 milligrammes per litre, whereas the maximum recommended by the World Health Organisation,

1561
backed up by our own Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, in its fairly recent seventh report, is 100 milligrammes per litre.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the effluent from the sewers in Scotland is channelled into the public water supply, and whether that has any harmful effect upon the population?
Lord Skelmersdale: I cannot answer that supplementary question without notice, my Lords. However, I would say that this particular directive is aimed not at water channels but at water which is actually consumed by humans; the so-called potable water.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, has the noble Lord's attention been drawn to the report in last Sunday's Observer newspaper, which stated quite categorically that the Government are seriously concerned, and unpleasantly surprised, at rapidly rising levels of nitrates, which are increasingly suspected of causing stomach cancer? Can the noble Lord say whether or not the Government are as concerned as the newspaper report indicated; and, if so, whether they will set up an immediate inquiry, and not wait until 1985 before action is taken? This kind of report causes serious public alarm unless it is categorically denied.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords; my attention was not drawn to the particular article in the Observer to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has referred. However, we currently know that complex nitrogen compounds have been discovered in animals in laboratories, and these can cause cancer. But at the moment it is unknown whether that fact can be extrapolated so as to apply to humans. The Government are most seriously concerned with this matter, and in one of my supplementary answers I said that in this regard we were very carefully following medical science.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that, while some years ago the use of nitrate fertilisers dramatically increased agricultural yields, the evidence now is that greatly increased doses of nitrate fertilisers produce only very small increases in agricultural yields?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is rather another question; but I would assume that it depends entirely on what nitrate levels have already been added to the soil, as well as the type of soil structure that one is considering at the time.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that some of our sewage pipes run rather near to drinking water supplies, and could that not be the cause of the rise in infective hepatitis A?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I fear that I am completely stumped by that supplementary question from the noble Baroness. I shall certainly make inquiries and report to her what I discover.

Wartime Supply Requirements
3.10 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: 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 have estimated the requirements, in the event of a major war, of coal, oil and other sources of energy, of weapons and raw materials for their production, of skilled workers and of food for both the forces and the civilian population, assuming that the resources of NATO would be available; and how these estimates compare with their estimates of the strength of any likely aggressor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, since the Government's review of home defence in 1980, emergency planning staffs in all departments have been engaged in estimating wartime supply requirements for civil and military use and in planning how to meet them. No simple comparisons can be made with the capabilities of likely aggressors.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for doing his best to furnish me with an answer. I fear, however, that it is disappointing based on information that comes my way from two publications and no other source. There is no secret about it. The information is available to anyone. I believe that the Minister, like myself, is doing his best to try and prevent a war of any kind, nuclear or conventional. I am sure that that is the wish of every noble Lord in this assembly. Are we not faced, because of cuts, with a reduction in the production of the elements that provide energy resources and especially the deprivation of vast numbers of craftsmen who would be essential in the event of a major crisis that I hope will never happen? Will the Minister answer the last part of my Question. In military affairs we are strong. In logistics, we do not compare favourably with a likely aggressor. Will he answer that question?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall indeed try to answer. The noble Lord referred first, I think, to energy resources. I would remind him that, as he well knows from his past experience, the United Kingdom produces more coal than it uses and that the replenishment of coal is unlikely to be a problem. That should enable the supply of electricity to be maintained. Our gas supplies are entirely based on North Sea production. Denial of these supplies by enemy action would cause us to lose all gas and throw a heavy load on alternative supplies of energy, including, of course, electricity.
In time of war the Department of Employment would co-ordinate the use of skilled labour for domestic purposes and in support of the armed forces. This would be done so far as possible through existing labour organisations. The noble Lord is suggesting, I think, that we may need to recruit scarce skills in time of war. Your Lordships will realise that, in the present time of rapidly evolving technology, skills change and

1563
it is impossible to make block plans far ahead of requirements.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister give greater recognition to the importance of my noble friend's Question which is an echo of some of the contributions that I made in the debate on defence initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when I claimed that in an emergency our human resources would be at least as great in their importance as our weaponry? In the short period for which this Government will have responsibility before the general election, how will the Government act to engage 4 million unemployed in the wartime effort, not forgetting the considerable contribution that could be made by our many senior citizens?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the importance of the human element in war has never escaped this country and has usually accounted for its victory. I give due importance to that and also to what was stated by Lord Shinwell, for whom I have had a steady regard from the day he inspected me as a cadet in 1947 when he was already, I thought, very senior and likely to retire. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, appeared to ask us to deploy 4 million unemployed in war effort before the next general election. We intend to abide by democratic rules. It is unlikely that the general election will be delayed beyond the outbreak of the next war.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would not a suitable answer to the Question—one that might please the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—be that if we were forced to stand on our own, our resources for defending ourselves would be minimal indeed, but that, standing shoulder to shoulder with our major allies and taking our due share of the burden, we are well able to cope with any opponent?
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I have no desire to press the matter. However, as this Question is of such substantial importance I hope the Minister can find a satisfactory Answer. Will he refer the matter back to the Secretary of State for Defence and perhaps ask the all-party Defence Group to consider it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has played a prominent part in the winning of victories by this country standing shoulder to shoulder with others in two world wars. I do not need to remind him of that. I shall, of course, convey his conern to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As to the all-party group, it is not, I think, a function of a Minister in this House, or indeed of a Member of any Front Bench, to dictate what that august body shall do with its time.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that so far as can be foreseen, if anything can be foreseen, the likelihood is that another war would be very short and very hot? Will he say whether the Government are satisfied that they have, above all, adequate supplies of ammunition, which has not been mentioned, rather than items which will sustain us for a long war that is unlikely to happen, anyway?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Defence to supply our forces in time of war. I have no doubt that he will do so. As to the duration of the campaign, and its nature, the noble Lord's opinion is as good as that of many others.

Overseas Students' Awards
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., I shall, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on overseas students' awards.

Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, to abolish certain offences respecting foreign lotteries and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Irving of Dartford.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Telecommunications Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Lloyds Bowmaker Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

House of Lords Offices
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report read as follows:
1.Photograph of the House in Session
The Committee considered further photographs of the House in session for permanent display.
2.Staff of the House
A report from the Sub-Committee was received.
3.Refreshment Department
A report from the Sub-Committee was received.
The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Assistant Manager, a Deputy Chef and an extra waitress.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Industrial Memorandum number IM/14—Reduction in conditioned hours—to staff of the Refreshment Department.
4.Internal Audit
The Committee agreed to the introduction of an internal audit system to the House of Lords.
5.Hansard Reporting Staff
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the following changes in the Editorial staff on the retirement of Mr. C. R. Stanton, OBE, the Editor of Debates on 24th March 1983:—

Mr. D. A. Dumbreck to be Editor

Mrs. M. E. E. C. Villiers to be Assistant Editor

Mr. W. Frensham to be First Sub-Editor

Mr. G. R. Goodbarne to be Second Sub-Editor

The Committee expressed their warm appreciation of Mr. Stanton's long and valuable service to the House.
6.Parliament Office
The Committee were informed of the appointment of Mr. J. I. Stoodley as Legal Assistant and authorised the creation of a new post of Personal Secretary for the European Office.
7.London Weighting
The Committee authorise the payment of London Weighting allowance to staff provided with official residences.
8.Parliamentary Delegations
The Committee approved provision for the payment of revised subsistence allowances.
9.House of Lords' Judicial Fees
The Committee approved the following revision in the judicial taxing fee:—
On Bills taxed on or after 1st April 1983 where the amount allowed does not exceed £500, a flat rate of £25 be charged. On Bills, taxed on or after 1st April 1983, where the amount allowed exceeds £500, for every £1 or fraction of 1 an amount of 5p be charged.
10.Superannuation
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(i) Pension and lump sum to C. R. Stanton, OBE, Editor of Debates on retirement from 24th March 1983.

(ii) Pension and lump sum to H. J. B. Rice, Temporary Senior Clerk, on retirement from 1st January 1983

(iii) Preserved pension and lump sum to Mrs. E. A. Webb. Assistant Examiner of Acts, who resigned on 30th November 1982

(iv) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. B. McCullagh, Housemaid, who formally retires on 1st April 1983

(v) Short service payment to Miss M. R. Dean, Legal Assistant, who resigned on 31st December 1982

(vi) Short service payment to Miss P. J. Stockley, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 25th February 1983

(vii) Revised pension and lump sum to Sir Charles Sopwith, Second Counsel to Chairman of Committees, who retired on 1st June 1982

(viii) Revised pension and lump sum to T. G. Talbot, CB, QC, Assistant Counsel, who retired on 1st October 1982

(ix) Revised pension and lump sum to A. H. Town, Personal Assistant to Lords of Appeal, who retired on 1st November 1982

(x) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. Bellchambers, Housemaid/Cleaner who retired on 27th July 1982

(xi) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. Williams, Housemaid, who formally retired on 3rd September 1982

(xii) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. L. Saxton, Housemaid, who formally retired on 15th April 1982

(xiii) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. H. Chester, Clerical Officer/Cashier who retired on 1st May 1982.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and
1566
learned friend the Lord Advocate, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, before your Lordships agree to that Motion, may I say one further word about the Bill? It is a Bill which is modest in appearance but undoubtedly will effect substantial changes in the day-to-day practice of the courts in Scotland. Its effects have been discussed in a somewhat anecdotal and speculative way. I would repeat something I said earlier—but I should like the Government to take it on board—and that is that many of us in Scotland feel that the methods whereby the effects of such changes can be studied are inadequate. In other words, it is impossible to say with any confidence and accuracy precisely what the financial effects of such a Bill will be. It is impossible to predict with any accuracy what the effect will be upon the incidental business and the general business both of the Court of Session and of the sheriff courts in Scotland.
We are, in effect, required to take rather too much on trust in relation to a matter of this kind, and the Government are also required to take too much on trust. At one stage I suggested—and I shall come back to it in another context—that there ought to be in Scotland an institute of judicial administration which could examine this type of question. I hope that the Government will think seriously about that suggestion and how they might best use the universities to do real research into the day-to-day operation of our system of justice in Scotland. Meantime, however, I wish these changes well. I hope that many consultations which the Government were good enough to promise in the course of the proceedings on the Bill will be in fact fruitful. I thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, through the noble Earl, for his courtesy in handling the Bill.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I do not think it altogether proper that a member of the English Bar should intrude when, as I understand it, the Faculty of Advocates are losing some of their jurisdiction so far as undefended divorces are concerned; therefore I do not seek to do so. But on behalf of the Government and, more especially, my noble and learned friend, may I say that he has been considerably exercised by the very constructive part which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, played in the Committee stage of the Bill and, indeed, on Second Reading; and that also goes, of course, for my noble friend Lord Selkirk and for various other noble and learned Lords, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. I should like to pay tribute to all those noble Lords. On behalf of my noble and learned friend I give the undertaking which is sought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I have no doubt that this Bill will go a long way to improve the law of Scotland so far as this small but important arena is concerned.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, before your Lordships pass this Bill, having listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said I wonder if I may just add a word of truly warm welcome to the Bill. In my view the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, is to be congratulated for his determination to prepare the Bill, to present it to the House with such care and skill, and to see it passed in the face of not inconsiderable opposition from certain quarters of the legal establishment in Edinburgh. He was assisted, perhaps, by the circumstance that he had the support of the Law Society of Scotland. It is perhaps coincidental that this year the president of the Law Society of Scotland is a distinguished Glasgow solicitor. I have no doubt that his distinguished leadership contributed to the support which the law Society has given to this very sensible measure. My only criticism of it was that it should have been dealt with at about the same time as the Divorce (Scotland) Act was passed, I think in the time of the Government of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was a member. But, to coin a phrase, better late than never.
I wish this Bill every success. If it does not have success in relation to the expenditure on legal aid or jurisdiction in divorce, many people will say, "I told you so", and have a little bit of a schadenfreude in their turn. What the Government will then have to do is to take a long hard look again and monitor the whole business very seriously, and I hope that they will do so. If they do that, there is no reason why the Bill should not achieve the objectives which the Government set for it. I wish it well.
On Question, Bill passed.

Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1983
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone) rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 10th March be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, there are four legal aid regulation Motions on the Order Paper which I wish to speak to and, with permission, I will speak to them all together, although they will of course have to be moved separately. The first two Motions relate to England and Wales and the second two relate to Scotland, but they all have the same broad intent, and that is to up-rate the disposable income limits and the disposable capital limits available for legal aid by approximately 6·25 per cent. This increase is intended to ensure that persons with the same real income in the coming year as those who qualified last year will be eligible to receive legal aid, subject, of course, in suitable cases, to a similar contribution.
The lower disposable capital limit for civil legal aid is being increased to align it with the supplementary benefit limit of £2,500 as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Legal Aid in its recent annual report. The upper limit is increased to £4,000, thus maintaining the differential between the two. This increase in the lower limit represents an increase of over 90 per cent. Broadly speaking, it means that
1568
anyone eligible for supplementary benefit will also be eligible for legal aid without paying a contribution.
I should like to deal with the regulations in a little more detail. The legal aid regulations raise the lower disposable income limit for legal aid, below which no contribution is payable, from £1,850 a year to £1,965 a year, and the upper income limit, above which legal aid is not available, from £4,440 a year to £4,720 a year. They also raise the lower disposable capital limit for legal aid from £1,310 to £2,500, and the upper limit from £2,725 to £4,000.
The advice and assistance regulations—that is, the green form scheme—raise the lower income limit for legal advice and assistance, below which no contribution is payable, from £44 a week to £47 a week, and the upper disposable income limit for green form assistance, above which it is not available, is raised from £93 a week to £99 a week. They also raise the relevant capital limit above which legal advice and assistance is not available from £655 to £700.
The House should also be told, and is probably already aware, that I have made a further set of regulations, for the approval of which an affirmative resolution is not required. These are the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1983, and they make amendments to the scale of contributions which an applicant under the green form scheme may be required to pay towards his costs. The corresponding Scottish regulations are in a slightly different form. This is because the lower income limit for advice and assistance does not appear in the regulations requiring an affirmative resolution but in the instrument subject to the negative procedure, together with the amendments to the scale of contributions. These are the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1983.
All these limits were, it will be remembered, increased on 1st April last year. They will now be increased on 1st April this year to reflect the extent of inflation over the year from November 1981 to November 1982, as the last year's increase reflected the position in November, 1981. Any changes since November 1982 will, therefore, fall to be taken into account at a future date. The legal aid disposable capital limits have, moreover, been substantially increased in real terms by a percentage far in excess of inflation (as will have been gathered from what I have just said) as it is now, or was last November, or even at any time during the term of the last Labour Government. This will enable many of those who are excluded under the current limits—for example, old age pensioners with a small sum of capital—to be eligible for legal aid.
The coverage of the scheme as regards disposable income is much the same as it was last year. The limits are only one factor affecting financial eligibility. To obtain the concept of disposable income and disposable capital involves a deduction from gross income before the limits are applied; for instance, in respect of allowances for dependants, housing costs and fares to work. Perhaps I should add this. Although it is not the subject of these regulations, the House should be told that I have also recently introduced regulations to give effect to a number of changes to simplify the process of assessing the means of applicants for legal aid. These are relevant to the subject of eligibility.
The principal changes involved are as follows: first, the abolition of the rule allowing the disregard of the first £4 a week of unearned income; secondly, a relaxation of the rule governing reassessments so that in future a reassessment of an assisted person's disposable income will be made only if the assisted person's disposable income appears to have increased by more than £500 or decreased by more than £250 and a reassessment appears likely to lead to a significant change in the contribution payable; and, thirdly, a partial disaggregation of parents' and child's resources so that only the resources of those with whom a child lives and who are responsible in law for the maintenance of the child will be aggregated with the child's resources. These changes bring into effect the proposals of the advisory committee regarding simplification contained in their recent annual report.
I invite the House to approve these sets of regulations, and I beg to move the first of the four Motions standing in my name.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 10th March be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for guiding us through this somewhat complex forest of provisions regarding legal aid and assistance. Of course, we on this side of the House immediately welcome the increase in the financial eligibility limits for both legal aid and advice and for legal advice and assistance. I hope I may be forgiven for pointing out that the last major uprating of the eligibility limits was made in the package of improvements which the former Administration introduced in 1979. Regrettably, the financial limits were not uprated in November, 1980, nor again in November 1981, apart from small increases in dependants' allowances.
I am bound to say that before I introduced the 1979 regulations it was regrettably the case that a high proportion of the working population was excluded from the scheme. I have little doubt that the present incumbent of the Woolsack had as much difficulty as I in breaking through that limitation which was permitted by the Treasury. However, it is certainly a relief to learn that now there has been in particular the substantial improvement in the limits as to disposable capital at which no contribution is required. That is now increased from £1,310 to £2,500, and the upper limit is increased from £2,725 to £4,000. This was one of the major defects in the arrangements until now.
I think it is essential that eligibility limits are raised regularly and realistically, otherwise, once again, millions of our fellow countrymen will be excluded from the benefits of this essential service in the field of legal aid and assistance.
Lord Foot: My Lords, speaking from these Benches, may I say that when anything is proposed to the House by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and at the same time is commended to the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I think the House will agree that it must be right. At any rate, that is the view that we share on
1570
these Benches; and I deferentially concur in everything that has been said.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, as one who was in at the birth of legal aid and welcomed it with greater enthusiasm than most of my colleagues at the Scotish Bar at the time, but who have occasionally been critical of some aspects of its operation, from these Benches may I echo the appreciation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and say that we also welcome this further contribution to the legal aid scheme. To reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that if certain other of your Lordships agree and express appreciation at the noble and learned Lord's introduction of these regulations, if I also agree, then, a fortiori, it is almost bound to be right.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should also like to echo the words of praise to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his presentation of this matter. At this stage I should like to raise rather a technical point. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord that I have not given him advance notice of it. I very much welcome the increase in the value of the capital matters which arise in judging whether a person is able to receive any legal aid. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has raised the difficulties that have arisen because of the low value of that capital disposable aspect. But now, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, that has been increased very considerably.
However, in my capacity as President of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors, it has been brought to my notice that, in assessing whether a man or a woman, who has an income below the value of the income allowed for, has a patent or several patents, certain parts of the country say that if the person is the owner of patents, that constitutes a capital asset and he is precluded from getting legal aid because of the estimate of the value of the patent rights which he holds. Quite often a patent, although looking a very impressive document, is not worth the paper on which it is written. It may be that the noble and learned Lord will be able to assure the House—possibly not at this stage but later on—that in assessing the capital value of the assets of any applicant for legal aid, patent rights are not included for the purposes of the final sum.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the courteous and generous way in which these regulations have been received. I have always given great credit to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for the improvements he made in 1979. I think I praised them at the time so I am entitled to say so now. It was at that stage that the burden of legal aid on the taxpayer was significantly increased, but to show how much it has increased by I may say that in 1978–79 the burden was only £84·5 million; for 1983–84 it is estimated at £243 million. That indicates the size of the increase. The coverage, which of course varies slightly from year to year, is now about 70 per cent. of the whole population. Of those who can take the major advantage of the disregards it is rather higher than 70 per cent., and it is correspondingly

1571
lower for those, particularly in the case of single people, who do not have that advantage.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is concerned, I think I shall have to correspond with him about patents. I quite agree that they are not always worth as much as some people would suppose. I had a cousin who used to practise in that branch of the law, and he said, "Show me a patent and I will break it".
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: That is right, my Lords.
The Lord Chancellor: With those happy thoughts, my Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1983
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the second Resolution in my name.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 10th March be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Scotland)(Financial Conditions) Regulations 1983
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the third Resolution standing in my name.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th March be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland)(Financial Conditions) Regulations 1983
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th March be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Overseas Students' Awards
3.43 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a statement about awards to overseas students.
"On 16th December last the House of Lords ruled on the meaning of 'ordinary residence' in relation to the entitlement of students from overseas to mandatory awards. The main effect is that students who were in this country during the three years before their period of higher education, essentially for the purpose of taking a lower-level course of
1572
education, may have been eligible for a mandatory award, subject to a means test on their parents' income. They were not so eligible under the 'real home' test which formed the basis of the previous advice to local authorities by this and the previous Administration.
"The cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers of this ruling could be substantial. Much of the benefit will go to students from overseas who have come here with no expectation of receiving support from British public funds. The Government's policy is to support selected students and countries under the aid programme and the programme announced by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 8th February. Other overseas students are welcome but are expected to pay their own way.
"There will be no retrospective legislation. But the Government have decided to restore the position on mandatory awards to that which successive Governments thought and intended it to be. I have today laid before Parliament amendments to the 1982 Awards Regulations which will come into force tomorrow. Their effect will be that local authorities in England and Wales will not be obliged to make new awards after today to overseas students who have been resident here wholly or mainly for the purposes of education. I am also today issuing guidance to local authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is making similar arrangements.
"Our intention on fees for overseas students for 1983–84 onwards is to retain the differential arrangements which have in fact existed for many years. I shall make a further announcement as soon as possible as to how this should be done.
"Local authorities in England and Wales receive 90 per cent. Exchequer grant on their expenditure on mandatory awards, which in Scotland are paid direct by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Universities and other institutions in Great Britain directly funded by the Exchequer will be compensated for any unavoidable loss of fee income."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating that statement. The fact that the Secretary of State has had to make such a statement today is because of the crisis which the Government caused when they decided to charge full cost fees. That is when students found themselves in real difficulty. The shock of the Scarman judgment has jolted the Government into action, though it has taken four months since the judgment for a statement to be made, and many people have been waiting for that.
There was, of course, plenty of warning about the problems and difficulties that were likely to arise. Early in 1980 the then Secretary of State, Mr. Mark Carlisle, told the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts that the meaning of "ordinary residence" would be for the courts to decide. The chairman of the Select Committee, Mr. Christopher Price, warned that it could take two or three years before the decision

1573
would be taken and, indeed, it was nearly that length of time.
On 25th January this year, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. William Waldegrave, said in another place that a statement would be made shortly on the action to be taken as a result of the Scarman judgment. That was two months ago. We learn from the statement that there is to be further delay. In paragraph 5 it says about fees:
"I shall make a further announcement as soon as possible as to how this should be done"—
that is, how the differential arrangements will be retained. Can the Minister tell us when that further announcement will be made, and will it be the case that there will be no retrospective legislation applying hereto? May I ask for clarification on the sentence in paragraph 4 which says, of the regulations that are coming into force tomorrow,
"Their effect will be that local authorities in England and Wales will not be obliged to make new awards after today to overseas students who have been resident here wholly or mainly for the purposes of education".
Does this mean that anyone intending to take up permanent residence, even if he has not been here for three years, will be entitled to a mandatory award? Are only those exclusively here for education to be excluded?
I want to know what will be the effect on immigrants. Students who benefited from the Scarman judgment were all immigrants. If we return to the status quo, will immigrants suffer? Will there be a difference between real overseas students and immigrants? In the last paragraph, the statement says:
"Universities and other institutions in Great Britain directly funded by the Exchequer will be compensated for any avoidable loss of fee income".
May I ask what will be the position of the local authorities? Will the polytechnics and the colleges of higher education get compensation in the same way?
I want to make a last point about the delay that has been going on and, it seems, will still be going on for a further time. There has been and remains much difficulty and a great deal of confusion in local education authorities, in institutions and among the students themselves. Indeed there has been hardship for students. Can the Minister say when the whole situation, which so badly needs tidying up, will be cleared up so that those institutions and those students know exactly where they stand?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the Minister for making this Statement. I would venture to associate myself with the various questions which have just been put by the noble Baroness. For my part, I would simply say on behalf of those on these Benches that this is rather typical of the, on the whole, rather ungenerous attitude towards overseas students that has been consistently manifested by the present Government. I see the noble Baroness nodding her head. I suppose it is not much good protesting on this particular decision, which, on the whole, was probably expected by most of the people involved, unfortunately. The real question is what is going to happen in the future.
1574
Here I should like to repeat the question put by the noble Baroness. What is going to be the exact effect of the statement:
"Our intention on fees for overseas students … is to retain the differential arrangements which have in fact existed for many years",
which is perhaps not unexpected, and that they are going to make a further announcement as soon as possible? Will that announcement be made before Parliament reassembles or, as I should hope, after we come back on 11th April, when there would be an opportunity for us to discuss whatever the proposals are? I suspect that they may be as equally ungenerous as the proposals up to now, but I hope not.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for listening to this Statement. I am rather surprised by the attitude which the noble Baroness took about this. The advice to local authorities on the interpretation of ordinary residence which the House of Lords rejected was in fact given in 1978 by the previous Administration. I did not expect the fairly violent and virulent attack on the Government which I received, because I have no doubt it represented the best advice available at the time. But it was, and could only be, advice. Only the courts can provide an authoritative view of the law. This the House of Lords has now done, overturning along the way not only the department's advice of 1978 but also the views of lower courts in the same cases. I do not think there is anything for either the department or for this Government to apologise about.
Baroness David: My Lords, what I was criticising the Government for was putting up the fees; making the fees full-cost fees. That is what caused the crisis.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should have thought that parents who could afford to send their children to Eton or Harrow could probably well afford to pay the full prices of further education in this country. We must bear in mind that, mainly, it is children of this type that we are talking about. We are talking about pupils from abroad—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, shaking her head, but, yes, this is what this is about. This is about the parents of children who have decided to send their children to be educated privately in this country, mainly, and have then decided that, because of this, they are entitled to get mandatory awards for their children. The fact that they can afford to send their children to school here must mean that they can afford to pay their fees, and the small amount of money that we can afford should go to those who are in greatest need.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, made a lot about the time and the delay. I said that this was on 16th December. There has been a lot of legal advice needed and asked for as a result of their Lordships' judgment on this case, and this has obviously taken time. The noble Baroness asked me about immigrants. The great majority of those benefiting from the judgment are overseas students who have come to this country quite specifically to take advantage of our education system. We see no reason why any such people who wish to do so should be able, of their own volition, to obtain the

1575
substantial benefits we provide for our own students. Those selected overseas students we wish to help stay in this country we support in other ways. Others who will continue to benefit from the House of Lords judgment do not fall into the same category, and these will mainly be children of overseas diplomats and businessmen working in this country who have brought their families with them. I should have thought that immigrants would probably have been covered by that.
A lot was made by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about the question of fees. There is little that I can add to that. They are quite a different matter from mandatory grants, and are different in law. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, I am afraid, will have to wait for the further announcement promised in the Statement.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on this Bench would like to thank the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. Could he tell us whether he has any evidence of the numbers of students who were previously benefiting from mandatory awards on the basis which it is now proposed to terminate? I should have thought that most students would have been here on annual Home Office permits, which would not have qualified them as ordinary residents. However, if the Government consider that they have plugged a loophole here and are saving some money, I should like to ask whether they will now consider using the money they have saved for showing greater generosity towards the students from poorer countries.
One of our quarrels with the Government Statement of 8th February was the extreme selectivity of arrangements for students from the Commonwealth and certain countries. We were very concerned that there was very little in the Statement for students from the poorer developing countries. If the Government are saving some money on the one hand, could the noble Earl give us an undertaking that they will look at the needs of students from poorer countries?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I fear that my repetition of my right honourable friend's Statement must have been incomprehensible or badly put, because the one thing that this judgment is not doing is saving us money. It is costing us a lot of money, because until the judgment it was considered that students who came over here for school and A-level courses were not ordinarily resident in this country, and therefore they were not entitled to the mandatory grants. Now we find, because of the House of Lords judgment, that there may be considerable—and I say "considerable"; I do not know the details of figures—claims for money that they should have been paid at the time. I fear there is not going to be anything in the kitty to distribute. It is going to be a question of trying to find something in the kitty to pay for these students.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Government say in the Statement that their policy is to support selected students and countries. The Government cannot moan about being criticised. Anyone who has gone about the world knows the enormous
1576
harm that their previous cuts did, particularly in one case that I know well from my connection with Dundee University. A lot of Malaysian students used to go there, and they were indignant and actually took statutory measures to hit back at Britain with regard to trade. Is Malaysia included in the list of selected countries, and does the noble Earl hope that they will be able to put right the harm the Government undoubtedly did in that case?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that. This is quite different. We had a long debate on this, and my noble friend Lord Belstead answered for the Government. This is a completely different set of circumstances. This is to do with people living abroad who choose to send their children for education in this country. This really is very wide of the Statement.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it says in the Statement that the Government's policy is to give aid to selected students and selected countries. It appears to me entirely reasonable that I should ask whether a certain country from the Commonwealth is included.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with the answer.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I must declare an interest in asking my question since the forensic eloquence which persuaded the Lords, in their judicial capacity, to deliver the judgment now to be reversed by administrative action was the eloquence of my elder son. Having attended the judgment in that case it does not seem to me quite fair, or useful, to say that this primarily affects, although no doubt it does to some extent, a number of wealthy persons who send their children to expensive boarding schools and who are not much affected by the change. As I remember, those who brought the case had been studying at institutions of further education, or at polytechnics, or in other places, in order to prepare themselves better for entry into university.
It may well be that this judgment of the House of Lords came as a great surprise to the Department of Education and Science, just as they were very surprised to find that they were governed by the EEC rules in respect of European students. What seems to come out of this is that the Department of Education and Science is not very fortunate in the legal advice available to it. As I understand it, the House of Lords redefined "ordinary residence", a phrase which appears in many Acts of Parliament having nothing to do with mandatory grants or, indeed, with education. Do the Government now purport, as it were, to withdraw education from the purview of this judgment, or will they do something to try to bring the law into general operation? I ask that because I believe the Minister will find that it also affects the availability of the National Health Service to certain classes of people.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if the Department of Education and Science had had my noble friend's son acting for them, they might have received better advice at the time, but perhaps he was not qualified then. The Government are coming in for some stick

1577
from various parts of the House this afternoon. We are being fair and are living up to our commitment by saying we were wrong and must pay up. There is no question of introducing retrospective legislation, which would have been the dirty way to have dealt with the matter. It is a state of affairs about which both this and the previous Government were wrong, and I admit they were wrong. The judgment has been unfortunate, and the object here is to stop this state of affairs arising in the future.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, which Commonwealth or foreign Governments give reciprocal opportunities of this type for United Kingdom students in their countries? If my noble friend cannot answer that off-the-cuff, will he let me know?
The Earl of Swinton: I will let me noble friend know, my Lords.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and I both asked when the further announcement would be made about the fees. I also asked whether the polytechnics and the colleges would get compensation for loss of income in the same way as the universities. I went on to ask whether the fourth paragraph of the Statement meant that anyone intending to take up permanent residence, even if they had not been here for three years, would be entitled to an award.
The Earl of Swinton: I apologise to the noble Baroness, my Lords, but she asked me a lot of questions in a short space of time and I did not note them all. I thought I had answered the question about the timing of the further announcement on fees. It is that I do not know and cannot tell her. As for the polytechnics, some polytechnics and other institutions providing AFE may face claims for the reimbursement of fees paid in 1982–83 by students previously classified as overseas students. It is not my right honourable friend's present intention to revise pooling allocations within the quantum, but he will be ready to consider representations. I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about her third question.

Pig Industry Levy Scheme 1983 (Confirmation) Order 1983
4.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.
The noble Earl said: The order will bring into effect the levy scheme which has been submitted by the Meat and Livestock Commission under the terms of Section 1 of the Pig Industry Levy Act. Your Lordships will recall that this Act received Royal Assent on 1st March, having been generally welcomed and passed rapidly through all its Parliamentary stages. Your Lordships will also be aware that the Aujeszky's disease eradication programme began on
1578
14th March. In the short time that has elapsed, the disease has been confirmed in 29 herds totalling over 30,000 pigs. It is expected that the majority of infected herds will have been dealt with during the next six months.
The owners of those herds will receive compensation both for the loss of their herds and for the consequential loss which will result from having their herds slaughtered. The Pig Disease Eradication Fund Limited, which was set up by the National Farmers' Union, has established loan facilities to finance these payments in the initial stages of eradication, and it will be reimbursed from the proceeds of the levy, which will be raised by the commission as a result of this scheme. In order to keep the costs to the producers—who have agreed to finance the programme—to a minimum, it is important that the levy scheme comes into operation as soon as possible
The rate of levy for the first year of the programme will be 30p per pig slaughtered or exported alive. That is the maximum rate which is allowed by the scheme, and it was part of the basis on which the producers agreed to the scheme. Alterations to the rate will depend on the progress which is made with eradication and on the level of receipts from animals sold as salvage. The collection arrangements in the scheme are designed to be a straight addition to the Meat and Livestock Commission's existing levy arrangements to keep the administrative costs to the minimum.
The scheme will provide funds to enable Aujeszky's disease to be eradicated from British pig herds. It completes the legislative process which was initiated when the results of the producer poll were announced last November. I commend the scheme to your Lordships and, in doing so, congratulate all concerned in getting the eradication programme started so quickly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order, which we welcome because, as he said, it brings into effect the intention of the Government—supported by the official Opposition and other parties, and the hopes of many in the industry—as expressed by the recently passed Pig Industry Levy Act 1983. The levy was introduced in response to grave concern expressed by the industry about Aujeszky's disease and, as he said, the order gives power to the Meat and Livestock Commission to raise the levy, the proceeds of which will be used to pay compensation and other costs necessary to control and, we hope, eradicate the disease affecting pigs.
May I ask what consultation took place with the NFU—I was going to add, and with the Meat and Livestock Commission, but obviously they were consulted—and the industry in general about the level of the levy? I am certainly not opposing the levy but wondering what consultations took place to decide its level and the conditions under which it is to be collected, as outlined in the order, together with the basis of compensation. The Minister said that 30p was the maximum. I know from experience, as a former Minister of State, that although it is often the practice for Parliament to agree to maximum levels, the

1579
industry can impose a lower levy if it wishes, perhaps later reaching the maximum.
As the Minister will be aware, the pig industry is not without its problems, and various suggestions have been made about helping it with deficiency payments and so on. I notice that in the other place his right honourable friend the Minister of State said that prices had held up strongly for quality products. But there are distortions in supply and demand in respect of feeding grain and so on, and many pig producers have incurred losses. As I say, we are aware that the industry has its difficulties. That makes the levy much more essential, so as to help the industry in the bad times when the disease affects livestock. Perhaps the noble Earl will comment on the amount which might be regarded as essential and how he sees the levy in terms of balancing other costs. I welcome the levy, but it might be helpful if the Minister would comment on the questions that I have asked.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: From these Benches, my Lords, I too welcome the order and hope that it goes speedily into execution. The industry is paying for the whole cost of the scheme and it says a lot for the industry that in very bad times it has agreed to do that. Aujeszky's disease is enormously dangerous and our experience—with foot and mouth and other diseases—has been that the slaughter policy works and can preserve the health of the herd. I too should like the Minister to say whether he has any idea of the total amount of money which might be involved in compensating the 29 herds to which he referred, how long it will take to raise sufficient money to enable compensation to be paid and when he expects the levy to be lowered. In other words, can he give us any idea of how he expects the money side of this to go in this essential eradication scheme?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to put a point that the Minister may feel is out of order since we are talking about money, but perhaps it is rather in defence of the pigs. I notice that the eradication of this disease seems to be something that has fairly newly arrived on the scene. One wonders whether the close husbandry of pigs might have something to do with some of these diseases which now seem to be prevalent in the farming community.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. This is not a new disease. It has been around for some time—from, if I remember correctly, the early 1960s. It has not assumed bad proportions until recently. We in the Ministry of Agriculture have always considered that there are many other diseases which are potentially more harmful, but, where this disease does exist, it can have very penetrating effects. That was the reason why we suggested to the pig industry that, if they wished to eradicate this, the Ministry of Agriculture would co-operate in all ways in identifying and dealing with the disease provided that the farmers themselves financed it. The noble Baroness is quite correct. The more intensive any form of husbandry becomes, the more liable are the animals or plants to disease. That is a fact of life.
1580
With regard to the noble Lords, Lord Bishopston and Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked what consultation there had been with the National Farmers' Union. He will appreciate that there has been considerable consultation with the NFU and with the Meat and Livestock Commission, because the Meat and Livestock Commission have the practicality of having to collect the levy and the NFU have the problem, for the first time, of organising financing on anything like this scale. There have been close consultations. The rate of 30p per pig was included in the poll document with the agreement of the National Farmers' Union and that was the basis upon which the producers agreed to the scheme in the first place. So there has been close consultation with the industry throughout.
It is difficult to say how long this levy will last at its present height. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that it is anticipated that the greatest cost of the scheme is going to fall in the first year. Now, the scheme is under operation and the veterinary surgeons of the Ministry of Agriculture are out locating the diseased herds and disposing of the diseased herds. This is the period when the greatest slaughter, and therefore the greatest compensation, will be required.
I should point out that those animals which are clinically diseased will not be sold but disposed of. But those which may have evidence of having been infected, although they are clinically sound, are perfectly suitable for human consumption and will go for slaughter. There will be a salvage value on those carcases. It is difficult to say what that might be. As a rough approximation, one might think that the compensation could be in the region of £20 million and the anticipated salvage could be about £16 million. The balance therefore would be in the region of £4 million. And it is anticipated that the levy on 15 million pigs a year will produce about £4½ million.
I think I should make it clear that the levy is collected by the Meat and Livestock Commission and will be passed over by direction of the Minister to Pig Disease Eradication Fund Limited. The actual funding for the consequential loss will be part of the duty of the organisation itself and the actual compensation for the animals will come straight from the levy. In other words, the payment will be in two parts. One is the payment for the animals which are destroyed and the other is a payment which is funded totally by the industry and which is for the consequential loss, which is in the nature of 20 per cent. per animal for breeding animals and 5 per cent. for fattening animals on separate premises.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I understand that the consequential loss will not come from the levy?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the consequential loss will come from the levy; but it will form a different part of the actual payment which the farmer receives. He will be paid the cost of the value of the slaughtered carcase and then paid separately the compensation for loss of profit.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I explain the nature of my question

1581
about the 30p maximum? I think it is usual with the Meat and Livestock Commission on various animals to set a ceiling and to levy lower than that ceiling. I presume that the 30p maximum which is going to be levied from the start is considered adequate, and that the commission does not need freedom to go higher. If they do, this will need another order at a later date. That is not a criticism, it is merely an explanation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am so sorry I did not make that point clear. I thought I had done so by saying that the greatest expense is likely to come during the first year. But it may take two or three years at the 30p levy in order to refund Pig Disease Eradication Fund Limited. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there will be an increased levy. It will merely mean that the receipts may possibly continue for three years, although the greatest expense will come during the first year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) Scheme 1983
4.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in November last year my right honourable friend stated his intention to make grants available for a five-year period for the replanting of our apple and pear orchards. The three orders before your Lordships today allow for these to be paid under the existing capital grant arrangements from 1st April. The printed order, the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) Scheme 1983, is an amendment to our national scheme. The two other orders—the Agriculture and Horticulture Development (Amendment) Regulations 1983 and the Farm and Horticulture Development (Amendment) Regulations 1983—are draft orders for your Lordships' approval and they amend the European Community schemes.
My Lords, our apple and pear industry began its recovery with the introduction of the Kingdom marketing scheme some 2½ years ago. This is the premium pack which was first recommended in a penetrating study of the British apple and pear industry which was carried out by my noble friend Lord Selborne and his colleagues on the industry's Top Fruit Working Group. The success of the Kingdom scheme has shown that our growers can be viable and can compete with the best imported produce provided that they organise themselves and produce good quality, properly graded fruit, which is properly and professionally marketed.
What is needed now is a greater supply of this produce. A third of our orchards have become too old to produce top quality fruit and a number of varieties which are grown merely have a local demand. The orders before your Lordships are designed to back up the Kingdom scheme by encouraging growers to plant with varieties of fruit which are in popular demand. It is estimated that, over the five-year life of the scheme, this additional aid will amount to some £5 million.
Grants for grubbing trees are already available under the grant schemes. These new orders will enable grant to be paid towards the capital costs of replanting apple and pear orchards which are grubbed up after 7th November 1982. The rates of grant will be 22·5 per cent. under the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme and 32·5 per cent. under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development and Farm and Horticulture Development Schemes.
For too long the rewards of apple and pear growing have not been adequate enough to encourage the planting of new young trees. As a result, the trees have grown old and both the quantity and the quality of the fruit which they produce has suffered. They need to come out and to be replaced with fresh, young trees, capable of providing good quality fruit. There is still too much poor quality fruit on the market, but these grants will help apple and pear growers to modernise their orchards.
The industry has been consulted on the varieties which are considered to be commercially viable, both now and in the future, and which are considered to have a reasonable storage and marketing life. Those named in the orders are Cox's, Bramley and Spartan apples and Conference and Comice pears. Growers might wish to plant other varieties to meet, for example, a local market demand, and the orders therefore provide for the aid to be given on a restricted proportion of other varieties of trees for pollination purposes. Up to one in four trees to be planted may be of a variety which is not mentioned in the order. In order to qualify for grant, the stock planted will have to be certified under the Ministry's Plant Health Propagation Scheme or be of a comparable health standard. No problems are anticipated over the availability of healthy stock to meet the demand created by the grants.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that these grants should give our apple and pear industry further encouragement. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his explanation of these orders and to give a welcome to them, because they substantially help British agriculture which over the years has made a very substantial contribution to our own food needs and to vital United Kingdom exports. Productivity in our food and agricultural industries has been extremely good and has been an example to other industries. As I have said before, if only the productivity of other industries had matched that in the agricultural sector there would be fewer problems. But in order to maintain such a record, the pursuit of excellence must be a continuing objective, especially in competition with the EEC producers and in particular the French and other growers.
Apples and pears are the concern not only of the Apple and Pears Development Council, the Ministry and other bodies, but also the concern of every grower and producer and, indeed, of the consumer, who must see quality and prices as being competitive. Marketing is also important in ensuring that the fruit on offer is of

1583
the finest quality and presentation. The measures do help us to maintain the high standards of production. Coming from Nottinghamshire, as I do, I have a particular interest in the Bramley, which originated in that area.
Good marketing, which is the concern of the Apple and Pear Development Council and the Ministry, will not be helped if the fruit is substandard so these measures will be helpful here. The aim of the orders, as the Minister of State has said, is to improve the stock, and they are to be welcomed. I hope that consumers will also be aware of the very great effort being devoted to ensuring that our food products are competitive. In last year's report of the Apple and Pear Development Council a few points were made which are obvious to many of us but which should not be forgotten. They referred to the fact that:
"Substantial amounts of concentrate are produced in countries that have lower costs than the U.K. in terms of both processing and raw materials. This, together with good world-wide apple crops in most years, has tended to maintain prices at a relatively low level."
They go on to say:
"A preliminary financial appraisal indicated that it would be difficult to set up a plant in the U.K. and process apples into concentrated juice at a cost low enough to compete effectively with imported juice".
Therefore, although it is very important, as the Minister has said, to ensure that our producers have this kind of aid to ensure the maintenance of the very high quality of their produce, it is also important to recognise that they are in great competition with imports from other countries and therefore this aid is doubly welcome. The apple juice market is important and it is vital that the product should be such as to enable it to capture a greater share of the market. I understand there is spare production capacity in the apple-processing industry so that there is still great potential for further quality production.
With those few words, may I say again how much we value the aid given by the Government to the industry. We hope that our industry can remain competitive both in quality and price.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the order. I think it is awful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is not in his place to welcome this order, because the last time we spoke about Cox's Orange Pippins in this House he was absolutely lyrical about the pippin, and that must have done a great deal of good in the country. I hope he will take an early opportunity to repeat his marvellous comments on the pippin and do some more good.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks the one in four will be enough to take care of a number of rare varieties which are useful and which will have a limited market. May I also ask him why we have not included the main competitor, which I understand grows here quite well; that is, Golden Delicious! That is the apple which is indeed taking much of the market and I should have thought we might have encouraged somebody to try to beat the French at their own game and perhaps grow a tastier form of the apple in this country. Perhaps the noble Minister could tell us why this was not included.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole purpose of the scheme was to encourage the planting of those varieties which are in popular demand. In fact, Cox's make up about 60 per cent. of the national dessert apple area, and Spartan about 5 or 7 per cent. Bramleys are 85 per cent. of the culinary apple area. While a number of other varieties are grown, it is very difficult to market those adequately or on a national scale, although there may be some local demand, as I suggested earlier. It is possible to allow for that by planting these additional trees which anyway have to be planted in order to act as pollinators.
We have, of course, to encourage the apple industry to grow those varieties which sell best, and while it is perfectly true that Golden Delicious have a certain market it seems to be the case that those from overseas happen to get priority of publicity, as opposed to the English variety. For those reasons, we decided on the three apple varieties I have referred to; but of course if circumstances change and other varieties come up in interest and demand then they can be added to the list of apple varieties which can attract grants.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Horticulture Development (Amendment) Regulations 1983
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move these regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture and Horticulture Development (Amendment) Regulations 1983
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move these regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Valuation (Communal Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 1983
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Valuation (Communal Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 1983, a copy of which was laid before the House on 7th March, be approved. The purpose of this short order is to apply the power provided in Section 5(2) of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe a method of ascertaining the rateable value of certain lands and heritages in Scotland. The lands and heritages described in the Act and covered by the order are those which are not used for profit-making purposes, which are wholly or mainly used as residential accommodation for persons living separately from any family and in which certain facilities are shared by those persons. The order itself specifies a limit. It will apply only to property where the total external area is not more than 300 square metres. The order provides

1585
that these lands and heritages are to be valued according to the provisions relating to the valuation of dwellinghouses in Section 6 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 as if they were, in all respects, dwellinghouses. It is also provided that valuation rolls shall be altered to give effect to the order, and for the order to come into operation at the beginning of the next local authority financial year, which is on 1st April 1983.
The powers now in Section 5 of the 1982 Act were introduced during consideration of the Bill by your Lordships' House in Committee. The problem of high valuation and, therefore, high rate burden on communal accommodation had been raised in representations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State during consideration of the Bill in another place, and in your Lordships' House these points were raised by my noble friend Lady Elliot. The provisions in Section 5 were introduced as a result of the Government's consideration of the problem.
My noble friend Lord Mansfield explained, when moving the relevant amendment, that the Government had been aware for some time of the difficulties caused to charities, local authorities and housing associations by the valuation of communal accommodation for single people as commercial and not domestic property, regardless of its size. This means that those persons living in this type of property pay higher rates than are levied on comparable domestic property. My noble friend Lady Elliot, in the speech she made during consideration of the Bill in Committee, mentioned a number of examples, including flats run by the Edinburgh Youth Homes to provide accommodation for young people leaving children's homes. These were originally rated at £172, but when they were divided and lived in separately were valued by the assessor as a hostel and the rates increased to £467. Another example has been brought to our attention by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which took on the tenancy of a block of postwar fiats in Edinburgh. These were occupied as permanent accommodation by ex-psychiatric patients and the rateable value was increased, following the adoption of a commercial basis of valuation, from £202 to £376 each.
Accommodation such as housing projects designed for single persons generally, with communal facilities, are usually valued as a hostel on a commercial basis, greatly increasing the rateable value and, as a result, a number of projects to provide accommodation for single homeless and for single people generally have been jeopardised. It was recognised, when the power of Section 5 were sought, that the problem of valuation of these properties on a commercial rather than domestic basis is not capable of a single of a simple solution. As I am sure those of your Lordships who have ventured into the subject will know, valuation law is extremely complex. In the short time available prior to introduction of the Section 5 powers in the Bill, it was not possible to consult widely enough to achieve agreement to the substantive changes to be made in primary legislation. It was for this reason that it was decided to seek a general power to enable the Secretary of State to tackle the problem as appropriate, by prescribing rating relief and/or methods of ascertaining values.
1586
If I may detain your Lordships a little, the root of the problem lies in the fact that in Scotland dwellinghouses are entitled under statute to a favourable method of valuation which is not usually extended to other kinds of residential accommodation owned, for example, by charities or housing associations and let to persons often disadvantaged in some way, who would find it difficult to provide their own accommodation. Often, the rateable occupier is not an ordinary householder, and the accommodation is not assessed as a dwellinghouse and loses the considerable valuation benefit associated with this status, which may not be compensated for by other relief; for example, that which is available to charities. The accommodation concerned may be just as much the settled home of the occupants as is a dwellinghouse but the occupants are penalised in having to pay higher rates than householders who are often better off than they. The extent of the rating disadvantage will vary considerably from property to property, and the fairest way of providing the exact relief merited is by having the residential accommodation, often a flat, assessed as if it were a house.
Since the 1982 Act was passed, a committee of the Working Party on Local Government Finance in Scotland has carefully considered how the powers enacted in Section 5 might best be put into effect. They came to the view that the problem of high values and, consequently, high rate burdens was most pressing in respect of those properties most akin to dwelling-houses. They considered that, as the basis of the problem was valuation on a commercial rather than a domestic basis, provision should be made to ensure valuation in line with domestic property. The order therefore provides that premises within the terms laid down are to be valued as if they were, in all respects, dwelling-houses, notwithstanding that structural adaptations might have been made of a nature not normally found in a dwellinghouse; for example, additional washing, cooking or storage facilities.
The order is restricted to those lands and heritages with an external area not exceeding 300 square metres. We are advised that this will allow the order to be applied to properties up to and including those which are of a similar size to comparatively large houses, and for which there is sufficient evidence available to enable assessors to fix a valuation as if the property were a dwellinghouse. A review of the rate burden on larger premises, such as hostels, is in hand. When this is concluded, consideration will be given to whether and to what extent relief for these premises may be appropriate. Larger properties will require separate consideration mainly because they are unlike dwellinghouses in size and structure, and it is likely, therefore, that any measure which might be proposed would have to provide a solution for larger premises different from valuation as if they were dwellinghouses.
This order has the support of The Scottish Council for Single Homeless and other housing associations, to whom I should record our gratitude for bringing this problem to our notice, and for their willing and helpful co-operation in constructing the solution contained in the current order and in carrying out further studies. It is considered that the modification to the existing valuation system contained in the order will go a

1587
considerable way to removing a widely perceived unfair discrimination in the existing system against those in the community whose burden in life can well do with lightening, rather than being added to. It is also a matter of practical common sense that the rating system operates in as even-handed a manner as possible. The order is evidence of the compassion and sound practicality of this Government. For that reason, I commend it to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 7th March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
4.39 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, with regard to the order itself, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining it. With regard to the last sentence of what he had just said, the House will see that the noble Lord took the opportunity to congratulate the Government, because he gets such few opportunities to display compassion. This extremely modest example of the Government's compassion is welcome like a good deed in a naughty world.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he would explain something to me. He has explained what the purpose of this order is. As I understand it, there has been a question in Scotland, as yet unresolved by the courts, as to whether, for example, a small convent—and I say "small" because I am thinking of the external measurement given in the order—would qualify as
"residential accommodation for persons living separately from any family"
and sharing facilities. I assume that the answer to that is, Yes; but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be able to tell me.
There is one other anomaly to which I want to draw attention—and I have given the noble Lord notice of this question. It is bizarre that a Church of Scotland minister who lives in a manse in Scotland is deemed under valuation law to be living in a dwellinghouse; but a minister of any other religion—and in particular Roman Catholic priests who live in presbyteries—are not, in large parts of Scotland, deemed to be living in dwellinghouses, because the use of the house is said to be not that of a dwellinghouse. The result is that, at least in certain parts of Scotland, there has been a kind of religious discrimination, depending on whether or not one is a member of the Established Church.
I wonder whether the result of this order will be that when one looks in future at a presbytery lived in by a Roman Catholic priest, or at a house inhabited by a Salvation Army minister, if there is such a person, it will be regarded as
"residential accommodation for persons living separately from any family";
and, if so, whether it will be deemed to be a dwellinghouse? If the answer to that is that the order will apply to such accommodation, will it apply to such accommodation only if there are two priests living there, and thus sharing the accommodation? And will the house cease to be a dwellinghouse if the senior priest dies or the junior priest decamps, thus
1588
leaving the house occupied by only one person? Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify these matters so that those who read the proceedings of this House in order to understand what the effect of the order is will be able to understand how it will apply in this somewhat bizarre situation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, your Lordships will be very grateful for the detailed scrutiny of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and for the pertinent questions put by him. I would be less than fair to your Lordships, and certainly less than fair to the noble and learned Lord, if I were not to let your Lordships in on the secret that the noble and learned Lord gave me prior warning of his question, albeit a simple question. I hope that I shall provide some kind of answer. At the same time, the noble and learned Lord's question covers a fairly wide area and he may find my reply not entirely satisfactory.
Your Lordships will see that the lands and heritages to which the order before us this afternoon applies are those specified in Article 2 of the order. I understand that property within the category specified is required to be valued according to the provisions for ascertaining the value of dwellinghouses. This is prescribed in Section 6 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956. Your Lordships will recall that in the course of my introductory comments I mentioned that this was a favourable method of valuation. This advantage arises mainly from the provision that in assessing the annual rent, which is the basis of all valuations, it shall be assumed in the case of a dwellinghouse, first, that all comparable accommodation in the locality is due shortly to become available, free from any statutory or other restrictions; secondly, that rents are unsubsidised; and, thirdly, that no marked excess or deficiency exists of accommodation relative to tenants.
The definition of "dwellinghouse" does not appear in the Act, but I am given to understand that lack of a precise definition of what is and what is not a dwellinghouse does not appear to have caused difficulty to assessors in applying the method of valuation appropriate to dwellinghouses prescribed in the 1956 Act. I understand that no representations have been made for a definition of "dwellinghouse" to be prescribed.
Finally, perhaps I may settle the question of convents or other houses occupied by religious persons for residential purposes, in reply to the noble and learned Lord. I understand that the order will cover these houses and convents, or buildings occupied for residential purposes, if the criteria of the order are satisfied; if the area of the building is within the size restriction. In the definition of the building, the noble and learned Lord mentioned a convent. The noble and learned Lord mentioned to me before we came to your Lordships the case of a convent separate from a church or other institution. I believe that if the area of the residential building was within the size restriction and if the building was used wholly or mainly for residential accommodation by these persons, the residents would certainly find themselves in all cases—be they priests, ministers, clergy, curates or nuns—living in
"residential accommodation for persons living separately from any family".

1589
That might cause some difficulty with the Church of Scotland minister—I would not know for certain—but Roman Catholic priests, nuns, and other religious orders, provided the building in which they are resident falls within the size restriction of 300 square metres, will find, as I understand it, that the order indeed covers convents and priests' houses of the type described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I hope I have gone some way to answering the noble and learned Lord's question. Does he wish to intervene?
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, sits down, I entirely accept what he said about there being no definition of "dwellinghouse" because the Act does not use the phrase "dwellinghouse" but "occupied as a dwellinghouse". Therefore, attention is directed at the character of the relationship between the premises, on the one hand, and the persons who use them, on the other.
However, I wonder whether the noble Lord can deal with my last point? The order refers to shared accommodation and to "persons". Therefore, it envisages that premises to which the order will apply will be premises in which there are several persons. If one has premises of that kind occupied by two persons, and therefore the order applies, and then one of those persons dies or leaves and the same premises continue to be occupied in the same character by the survivor, will the premises then cease to be occupied as a dwellinghouse within the meaning of the order? If so, should not the Government think of that as being an extraordinary anomaly?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as the representative of the Government this afternoon, I have indeed thought of that anomaly, but I have to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that I do not have an answer to the problem. I recognise that in the criteria I have quoted from Article 2 of the order they are classified as being "shared by those persons". But I will certainly obtain the information for which the noble and learned Lord has asked. I shall reply to him as succinctly, briefly and swiftly as possible. I am immensely grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to all other noble Lords for their forbearance this afternoon. This is a technical subject.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has finished with the interesting point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and before he sits down, I do not wish to join in any argument about compassion but I shall look forward to discussing the matter on some future occasion. I could not raise any matter with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, because I was unable to obtain a copy of the order until two o'clock this afternoon, and I have been in the Chamber since then. I was a little bothered by the Explanatory Note, which does not seem to explain anything. I appreciate that the Explanatory Note does not form part of the order, but it simply adds nothing at all. The Explanatory Notes to many of the orders we debated earlier did add something, particularly for the layman reading these matters for the first time, perhaps. Valuation and rating are difficult and complicated matters, and I submit for the noble Lord's consideration that he
1590
might suggest to the draftsman that the Explanatory Notes should do a little better than that.
My other point is that I was a little puzzled by what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said with regard to the total area, which I understand is not to exceed 300 square metres. I understood the Minister to say that that was the area of a normal house. I must say I could not understand that part. I am sure it is my own obtuseness. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to explain again why the area of 300 square metres was chosen.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for his comments and for the interest that he has taken in the matter. I will endeavour to find out if there was a shortage of copies of the order so that he was unable to obtain one.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I was not blaming anyone but myself. It was not available when I was last in the House. I am not complaining about not getting it; I was just explaining why I had not paid the Minister the courtesy, which Lord McCluskey had, of giving him notice of the points I was raising. That was all. I am not complaining.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord asked me about the problem of the Explanatory Note. As the noble and learned Lord and, I am sure, all your Lordships, are aware from the tenor of my remarks, the order brings into effect Section 5, which was the result of an amendment whch was moved by my noble friend the Minister in response to my noble friend Lady Elliot: she raised this point of the young single homeless persons who were resident in various types of accommodation which had up till then been classified as hostels. The Government certainly believed that there was a problem. We hoped that Section 5 had gone some way to meeting this problem, and the order, we would hope, will bring Section 5 into full effect.
The noble and learned Lord asked me also about the size of 300 square metres. I was given to understand that an average three-bedroomed house is of the order, including the external walls, of 150 square metres. I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord and to your Lordships that it is reasonable to limit the prescription of a method of valuation appropriate to domestic properties to those properties which are akin to—this is probably a slightly legalistic phrase—normal dwelling houses not only in purpose but also in size. We are advised that the limit of 300 square metres will cover the properties in that category. The figure of 300 square metres will, of course, include premises up to dimensions similar to comparatively large houses—that is the point I made in my preliminary remarks—and in relation to which there is sufficient evidence available to enable the assessors, who are the ones who are going to have to use this limit of 300 square metres, to fix a valuation as if the property were a dwellinghouse.
I am afraid I am not able to give an example as to the area of 300 square metres. I ought to know the measurements of the Chamber of your Lordships' House; I think it is something like 140 feet by 80 feet by 80 feet, as far as I can recall. The thought of a

1591
number of single homeless persons having hostel-type accommodation on the Floor of your Lordships' House I would leave to the imagination of the noble and learned Lord, but I hope I have been able to go some way to satisfy him on this limit of 300 square metres mentioned in the order.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation, as for his explanation of the order. May I reassure him that when I referred to the subject of compassion I was trying to be light-hearted; I was not being serious at all. But I find absolutely fascinating the competing claims of the Labour and Conservative Parties to compassion, especially as I have known them both for a long time.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thought probably the compassion was being directed in my direction; at least I always understand that that is the case whenever I rise in your Lordships' House, whether it is needed or not. Certainly on this occasion I have been attempting to explain very abstruse items of legal proceedings and legal wording and drafting to both noble and learned Lords. I am immensely grateful for the compassion and tolerance with which your Lordships have listened to my remarks this afternoon. I hope, if I have missed anything, that I may get in touch with noble and learned Lords at a later stage after the Recess. Meanwhile, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1983
4.57 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1983 be approved. These regulations have three main purposes. First, they consolidate the existing Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, which govern the registration of electors and absent voting at parliamentary and local government elections in Scotland. Secondly, they supplement the new provisions for the electoral registration of voluntary patients in mental hospitals introduced by the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982. Thirdly, they introduce a number of changes which, for the most part, have been broadly agreed by the political parties, by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and by other interested bodies. The opportunity has been taken to set out the regulations in a more logical and convenient order. The number of prescribed forms has been reduced and some minor drafting amendments have been made to express the intentions of the regulations more clearly. These consolidating regulations follow the consolidation of existing electoral law in the Representation of the People Act 1983, which came into force on 15th March. Your Lordships approved similar regulations for England, Wales and Northern Ireland on 17th March.
1592
The major change of substance in the regulations is the new provision made for the electoral registration of voluntary patients in mental hospitals. This follows the provisions introduced in the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982, which comes into force on 1st April, and are consolidated in section 7 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Regulation 9 requires a patient's declaration to be attested by a member of the hospital staff authorised for the purpose by the managers of the hospital, and enables the hospital to send the declaration to the electoral registration officer on the patient's behalf. Regulation 13 sets out how the electoral registration officer should enter a patient's name in the register. There will be no special marking on the register which would enable those on it to be identified as mental hospital patients. Voluntary patients will be able to make a declaration for inclusion in the register on or before 10th October this year, and to vote at any election held after 16th February 1984, when the 1984 register comes into effect.
Of the other changes introduced by these regulations, the main one is the change in the timetable for absent voting. Under existing regulations, applications for an absent vote have to be received by the twelfth day before the day of a parliamentary election and the fourteenth day before a local election. This time of grace does not count Sundays, Bank holidays and other breaks.
The Representation of the People Act 1981 extended the timetable for parliamentary elections by providing that Saturdays should be disregarded in the computation of the parliamentary elections timetable. Under these regulations, Saturdays will also be disregarded for the purpose of the absent voting timetable at parliamentary and local government elections. The regulations fix the deadline for absent voting applications at both elections as noon on the eleventh day before the poll. This means that the deadline at a parliamentary election will be moved from midnight on the Thursday two weeks before polling day to noon on the Wednesday. Because of the changes in the parliamentary elections timetable introduced in 1981, an elector will in fact have one day longer to submit his application than he did at the last General Election in 1979.
The other changes of substance are increases in certain fees and fines prescribed by the regulations, including the fee for spare copies of the electoral register and of copies of a return or declaration of a candidate's election expenses. These fees were last increased in 1979. Regulation 75 increases the fine for giving false information to a registration officer from £50 to £100. It was last increased in 1969. These are consolidating regulations, and the few changes they incorporate will, I hope, be useful to all concerned with contesting, running or voting at elections. For that reason, I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 10th March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, again the House will thank the noble Lord for describing what these regulations do. I think the House will appreciate that they do for Scotland what the other regulations do for

1593
other parts of the United Kingdom. There is one matter to which I wish to draw attention. As the noble Lord said, a principal purpose is to make things slightly easier for voluntary patients in mental hospitals. The 15th Report from the Joint Committee draws attention to the fact that the Government seem to have acted in great haste here and laid this instrument before Parliament before this enabling Act was published. The Home Office, in reply to that criticism, in effect state that it wanted the order to come into force on 1st April. This, as your Lordships know, is April Fool's Day, and one has to ask why the Government are so keen that this order should come into force on that day. I cannot imagine that their taste is so bad as to have thought that that was an appropriate day on which to enlarge the electoral rights of voluntary patients in mental hospitals. I can only suppose that the real purpose of this unseemly haste is that the Government are trying to clear the decks for an early General Election—perhaps a snap election at the beginning of May. Before the order is formally accepted, perhaps the Ministers will explain the Government's intention and give us the benefit of advance notice of the date.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for, as always, his detailed study. I assure the noble and learned Lord that there was no malice or indeed mischief in suggesting that these regulations should come into force on the day that is traditionally known for pranks, albeit possibly in the Scottish legal profession as in any other walk of life. I stress to the noble and learned Lord that Regulation 9, which is made under a provision originally enacted in the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982, prescribes the manner in which voluntary mental patients in hospitals may make declarations to be registered as electors. This Act, the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982, is due to come into operation on 1st April. It is essential that the regulations we are now discussing should come into effect on the same day.
To digress for a moment on to a general point, may I say that these regulations consolidate what I call a ragbag of existing regulations which are becoming increasingly difficult to follow for those who need to use them. It was generally agreed that the sooner the new regulations were introduced the better, albeit on 1st April.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Upholstered Furniture (Safety)(Amendment) Regulations 1983
5.5 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper: that the draft Upholstered Furniture (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which are to be made under the Consumer Safety Act 1978, be approved. I stress to your Lordships that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the text and did not comment on it. The draft regulations supplement the provisions of the 1980 Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations, and need to be read in conjunction with those regulations. I would not claim that this makes for easy reading. However, the two main changes are, in themselves, relatively straightforward.
1594
Your Lordships may remember that the 1980 regulations required domestic furniture to carry red warning labels if it could not pass two British Standard tests for resistance to ignition by a smouldering cigarette and a small butane flame simulating a lighted match. Draft Regulation 2(c)—new Regulation 4A—would require furniture which does pass the two tests—the match test and the cigarette test—also to be labelled with a new green-edged square label stating that the piece of furniture passes. The problem at present is that this safer furniture can be identified only by the absence of warning labels. I would ask noble Lords to consider whether, faced with unlabelled furniture, they would readily deduce that this was cigarette and match proof. I am assuming that those noble Lords present have much greater familiarity with the requirements of the current regulations than the average consumer or buyer of furniture, but, even so, I wonder whether any of your Lordships who have this expertise would not ask yourselves whether somebody had forgotten to put on the warning labels or whether they had merely fallen off.
The new regulations will require suppliers who are satisfied that their furniture does meet the tests to make a positive statement to that effect. Both the furniture industry and the enforcement authorities welcome this clarification. All furniture first placed on the British market since the end of last year has had to satisfy the cigarette test. The new labels will draw consumers' attention to furniture which satisfies the match test and this should help to stimulate demand for match-proof furniture.
The other main purpose of the draft regulations is to make provision for the safety of children's upholstered furniture. This category was exempted from the 1980 regulations on the ground that it was unnecessary to subject items of nursery furniture, such as high chairs, with only small amounts of upholstery, to tests dealing with the dangers of cigarettes and matches. The Government still consider this unnecessary. However, just over a year ago the Government began to receive reports of accidents involving, not high chairs, but what we call novelty chairs for small children which are constructed almost entirely from combustible materials such as polyurethane foam or expanded polystyrene. Some of these were actually marketed as "fireside chairs" and young children were pushing them close to electric, gas or coal tires and leaving them there. Sometimes the chairs caught fire and, in one case, the mother of the child concerned was overcome by fumes from the burning upholstery, although fortunately she recovered after hospital treatment.
In order to prevent further accidents my honourable friend made the Children's Upholstery Furniture (Safety) Order on 6th April last year. This prohibited, for one year, the supply of children's furniture containing more than small amounts of polyurethane foam and expanded polystyrene. One or both of these two filling materials was used in all the potentially dangerous chairs of which we were aware, and a prohibition on these specific materials was the most effective way of getting them off the market quickly. However, it would be quite possible to construct equally dangerous furniture using other materials. The only systematic safeguard is to set an objective performance standard

1595
for the furniture as a whole. After extensive consultation and research the Government concluded that furniture which passed the ignition test in British Standard 5852 Part 2 (Ignition Source 5) would also be likely to be safe when closely exposed for prolonged periods to typical domestic radiant heating such as gas or electric fires. This is a considerably more stringent test than either the cigarette or match tests.
Under Regulation 2(e) (new Regulation 5A) all children's upholstered furniture, apart from beds and items such as high chairs with only small amounts of upholstery or low density framework material, will have to pass this exacting new ignition test. This requirement will enter into force on 7th April to coincide with the expiry of the prohibition order. However, to give suppliers sufficient time to adjust it will remain possible—for a limited transitional period—to go on supplying children's furniture which would not have been prohibited by the order if it had remained in force. This exemption is contained in new Regulation 5A(1)(b). I think that your Lordships will find that right at the bottom of page 3 in the regulations that are before us.
All of these regulations carry forward the Government's commitment to reducing the fire risks of modern upholstered furniture. But they are by no means the last word. The Government will continue to explore actively other aspects of the problem. The 1980 regulation and the amendments are designed to promote the sale of furniture with reasonable resistance to ignition in everyday circumstances. More remains to be done to reduce the risks when furniture, for whatever reason, does catch fire. Work has started in the British Standards Institution to devise means of measuring the rate at which fires develop in upholstery after ignition. The Government are also monitoring and helping to sponsor research into the development of safer tilling materials, particularly acceptably priced substitutes for the types of foam currently used in 90 per cent. of modern furniture. As solutions emerge the regulations will need to be further reviewed.
Meanwhile the draft regulations before your Lordships' House will promote greater safety on these aspects of furniture flammability for which current technology already provides solutions. For that reason, I would ask your Lordships to approve them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining very lucidly these regulations. I must say that his explanation of the regulations makes them much more understandable than the actual reading of the regulations themselves. As the noble Lord said, these particular regulations have to be read in conjunction with the 1980 regulations. I wonder whether the noble Lord could advise your Lordships whether there are any proposals to consolidate the two sets of regulations so that they can be read in a more digestible form than will be possible at present?
The proposals contained in the regulations are proposals which are certainly to be very much
1596
welcomed. The hazards of furniture which can ignite too easily are very well known. The fact that the furniture is to be marked in this particular way to protect the consumer so that the consumer will know that the furniture has been tested in the appropriate way is certainly a step forward. Also, I was glad to know that it was proposed that children's furniture, and particularly, as the noble Lord said, novelty furniture, was also to be subject to regulations in the same way.
The noble Lord in explaining the regulations talked about the duties of the suppliers of the furniture. He did not in fact mention, I think, the question of the responsibilities of the retailers of the furniture. He did tell your Lordships that there was to be a transitional period so far as the suppliers are concerned. What will happen with regard to existing stock in retailers' premises? Will that be subject to some form of labelling? Will it be inspected or, in fact, if it has not been inspected, will there be some form of negative labelling for that to show that it does not comply? It could well be that some of that stock will remain in retailers' premises for a considerable period of time before being sold. But in general, we welcome the laying of these regulations.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, there is just one point about these regulations in paragraph 3(e). I declare an interest, non-financial, as an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The paragraph says:
"be attached to the furniture in such a way as at all times when the furniture is exposed for sale by retail either both faces are visible and legible or, if only one of them is visible and legible, the other may readily be made so by reversing the label by hand."
I think it is generally recognised that, first of all, the printing on some of these labels becomes affected very badly by washing and other means and that this means that the labelling becomes, so to speak, negative. Are there in the regulations—perhaps my noble friend the Minister can confirm this—means by which the labelling must be such that it is indelible and by reasonable washing the instructions on the printing can remain? This is vital if these very valuable regulations are to be made effective.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, these are very important regulations. Anybody who has seen the terrible effects on children who are burnt knows how important the regulations are. There have been terrible accidents from burning furniture of all kinds, but particularly of this kind. Can the Minister tell us whether the British Standard is a mandatory one and, if so, will the article be kite marked in addition to it being mentioned on the label that it has come up to the specification? There is a very important difference, as your Lordships will know. Many years of working on the British Standards to get mandatory standards against flammable nightwear, and, indeed, against dangerous furniture, have led me always to follow whether all these regulations are mandatory.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, my noble friend Lord Auckland and the

1597
noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the attention which they have paid to these rather complicated regulations. We are very grateful for their continuing interest, in view of their expertise and knowledge in this particular area.
If I may attempt to answer the first question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concerning consolidation of the 1980 regulations in with the 1983 regulations, certainly the noble Lord has raised a very interesting point. We will certainly consider consolidation of these two sets of regulations if there are further substantial amendments. When I asked about the definition of "substantial" this morning, I was told that it would not just be one or two words, or a minor definition, but if there were large paragraphs or really major sections of the regulations to be altered we would certainly consider consolidation of these two sets of regulations.
The noble Lord also raised a point about what happens to stocks. I wonder whether he was thinking only of children's furniture, or all furniture. The noble Lord raised the spectre of novelty chairs, which I must say I am not aware of. I do not know whether they are similar to the type of chair across which Tom chases Jerry. I am not entirely aware of these so-called novelty or fireside chairs. However, I understand that so long as they are in the showroom, existing stocks will be allowed to be sold, but if I may ascertain the exact details of the stocks of children's upholstered furniture and fully upholstered furniture, I shall write to the noble Lord.
My noble friend spoke about ensuring that the label is legible, perhaps by reversing it by hand. I have obtained a very valuable little guide from the department for which I speak. Probably my noble friend is already aware of this particular point, which is more than I was before I became acquainted with the regulations. The guide is entitled, Furniture and Fire—A Guide to the New Furniture Safety Regulations. I understand that it contains details of labels that will be attached to upholstery by string, a pin, or some such method. But we propose to have other labels—green ones—which I understand will have to be firmly fixed to the cushion or other part of the upholstered piece of furniture. I think that the label has to be 90 millimetres square. All the details of what the labels shall look like and the definitions of the labels are set out in the booklet. I shall certainly send a copy of it, together with explanatory literature, to my noble friend, in the hope that they will go most of the way towards satisfying the point that he raised.
I fear that I am not able to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness. It goes a little wider than the precise regulations which I have been trying to explain this afternoon. Perhaps I ought to be able to answer the question, but I must apologise and say that I do not think that I can give a satisfactory answer at present. I hope that the noble Baroness and your Lordships will be content if I study her comments and write to her very fully, giving all the answers that I can. If no other Member of your Lordships' House wishes to raise a point on the regulations, I would commend them—
Lord Somers: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he give an English translation of "90 millimetres"?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale says "two point something". I know that 2·54 millimetres approximates to one inch. I am sorry, my Lords; I should have said 2·54 centimetres; that is, 254 millimetres, according to my noble friend. I shall attempt to discover the Imperial or British measure equivalent to 90 millimetres, and write to the noble Lord, Lord Somers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1983
5.24 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved. The purpose of the order is to do away with the special provisions for the valuation of tin, lead, and copper mines for rating purposes. These provisions were conceded to the mines in 1874, to take account of differences in the basis of royalty payments, on which rateable values are based, between these and other mines.
Uniquely, the price of tin is reflected in the rateable values of tin mines, which are reassessed annually. This special arrangement has resulted in a very substantial rise in the rates liability of the tin mines since the last general revaluation in 1973. Indeed, the rateable values alone of two of the mines have, I understand, increased respectively by five and 10 times over the last 10 years. This is quite an unintended effect of the method of valuation, and so the order which I am moving today attempts to remedy the situation by placing tin, lead, and copper mines on exactly the same basis as other mines for valuation purposes.
Perhaps I should explain, briefly, that mines and quarries are all rated by special formulae, as contained at present in the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1971 and the National Coal Board (Rateable Values) Order 1977. The first order—the 1971 order—sets out two different bases for valuing mines, other than National Coal Board mines. All mines except tin, lead, and copper mines are valued in accordance with the normal provisions of rating law. Rateable values are based on rental values, as reflected in royalty payments, and are reassessed annually to take account of changes in production levels which affect the royalties paid. Ancillary buildings and other structures, including shafts and adits, are separately valued and do not change annually.
Tin mines—for lead and copper are now mined only as by-products of other mining—are valued on the same basis, but with two important differences successfully negotiated by the mines in, as I said, 1874. The royalty payments which provide rental evidence are based on the value of production, so they change with changes in the price of tin; and underground workings and other structures are included in the rateable value based on the royalty payment, rather than separately valued.
Rate bills are the product of the rateable value base and the rate poundage set by local authorities. Of

1599
course, many industries have suffered from increases in poundages, but I am not aware of any instances, other than tin mines, in which rateable values have moved so significantly out of line between revaluations. The consequences are obvious in an industry that is of great importance in Cornwall. It is the function of the rating system to ensure that the burden of rates is spread fairly between ratepayers, and it is clear that in the case of tin mines this is no longer so. Therefore, after consulting the mining industry, local authority associations, those local authorities most concerned and other interests, the Government decided that we should remove this anomaly by making the changes contained in the order that we are debating today.
The order places the valuation of tin, lead and copper mines on exactly the same basis as other mines. This will reduce substantially the value placed on tin in the calculation of the rental evidence, bringing it down to 1973 prices from the current price of around £9,000 a tonne to some £1,700 per tonne. The benefits from this will be offset to some extent by the separate valuation of underground workings and other structures which will now be necessary. The local authorities most closely concerned have raised no objections to the—to them—minimal loss of rateable value that will result, since they clearly recognise the benefits to the area of relieving the tin mines of unjustifiable and substantial costs. If your Lordships today approve the order, it will have effect from the beginning of the 1983–84 rating year. I hope that the order will commend itself to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th March be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
5.29 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having explained the order, which is concerned with rateable value, and not the rate poundage, but, as he has implied, the two are very much connected and influence the total amount of the rates paid. I notice that under Section 19 of the Local Government Act 1974 the Secretary of State is required to consult local authorities and others, and from what the noble Lord has said I understand that that has been done. I do not know what "consultation" normally means to the Government—more often than not it means that they tell people what they have actually decided—but I gather that in this case there may have been true consultation, in so far as there was an exchange of views, which the local authorities welcomed.
I should like to ask the Minister what appeals exist against the level of rateable value levied on various rateable hereditaments. I presume that, as rateable values are going down, there may not be any appeals. I notice that the Minister says that local authorities welcome the proposal. However, if the rateable value goes down, it means that the local authority has correspondingly less in rates. It may be the case in some areas where mines are situated, especially Cornwall—I think of the Wheal Jane mine and others which have been in some difficulty—that the effect of the order will be to help the industry and also help the
1600
authority if the result is improved productivity in the mines concerned.
The Minister has mentioned the connection with royalty payments. Perhaps he can say what this means in present day terms having regard to the fact that he is changing legislation that dates from 1874. I should like to ask finally about the effect on mines. As the rateable value is being cut, do they still make royalty payments? At the end of the day will the mines, especially the tin mines of Cornwall with which I am sure we are concerned, be better off or otherwise? With those remarks, I think the House should give a welcome to the order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to Lord Bishopston for his reception of the order which will bring about a change to one small aspect of the rating system and will affect only a small area of South-West Cornwall. Nowhere else will be affected. Nevertheless, it is of considerable importance to the tin mining industry. The prosperity of that industry will have repercussions on the economy and the employment prospects of that part of Cornwall. I am satisfied that the benefits of the order for the area as a whole will far outweigh the costs to the local authorities concerned. It will, I fear, not be possible to provide accurate figures until the valuation officer has been to the mines and assessed their rateable values on the new basis. However, the total of the current rate bills of the four mines amounts to only just over the product of a penny rate in each of the three district councils after including the Cornwall County Council precept. The mines will, of course, still have to pay rates, although I would expect that the rates that they have to pay will be slightly smaller. I can confidently say that the cost to ratepayers generally will be minimal.
The tin mines will have the same rights as any other ratepayer to appeal against rateable values set under the new method of valuation. But since it is a benefit that the mines themselves specifically asked the Government to provide and since I am giving them, if your Lordships agree the order, a welcome Easter present, I hope, as the noble Lord says, that appeals will not be necessary in this case. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Level Crossings Bill
5.34 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I am indebted to the honourable Member for Gateshead East for piloting the Bill so far. I am delighted that he has used the opportunity of his success in the Private Members' ballot to promote such a useful measure. This Bill will rectify anomalies in the powers controlling changes to the protection and operation of level crossings.
I will begin by explaining the need for the Bill. Of course, most level crossings in the United Kingdom are on lines operated by the British Railways Board. Changes to almost all of these can be authorised by an order made by the Secretary of State for Transport at the request of British Railways. This is a simple, straightforward procedure and administrative costs are low. But there are also a number of level crossings on railways run by private operators, as well as a few

1601
crossings on British Railways lines, to which changes can only be authorised by private Acts of Parliament or in some cases by a light railway order. I have in mind in particular private companies who operate lines to transport goods, or preservation societies who run tourist railways. This curious state of affairs arises because of the complex tangle of legislation at present covering level crossings. It may help noble Lords if I briefly outline the powers as they exist so that they can see the gaps for themselves.
Much railway legislation is 19th century and the powers controlling level crossings are no exception. Our Victorian forefathers provided legal powers for level crossings to be built and for the provision of protection at crossings for their users. Most of these powers for public railways were drawn together in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, though there is still much extant private legislation providing similar powers in special circumstances. Most private railways are still covered by private Acts of this kind. What none of these powers provided was an ability to modernise the protection provided. Men with red flags or other protection suitable for a Victorian railway remained the order of the day.
To meet the needs of the second half of the 20th century, the British Transport Commission Act 1957 and the Transport Act 1968 provided the Minister of Transport—now the Secretary of State—with the power to authorise by order the modernising of the operation and protection of level crossings on virtually all lines operated by British Railways. But there are no similar powers to authorise modernisation of level crossings on lines run by private operators.
The only ways for a private operator to escape from this difficulty are to promote private legislation or, if applicable, to seek a light railway order. Private legislation and light railway orders are costly and time consuming procedures. Operators of the relatively small numbers of crossings on private railways which are in need of modernisation are quite understandably deterred by the expense and complexity of this legal anomaly, while, for the vast majority of level crossings in the country, British Railways have a convenient and simple means of obtaining authorisation for change.
It is quite wrong for different operators of level crossings to be treated in different ways by the law in this arbitrary fashion. This is the biggest gap in existing legislation which the Bill will plug by bringing all operators into line with the procedures currently applying to most British Railways crossings. But because the Bill allows the Secretary of State to authorise level crossing modernisation on the application of any railway operator the Bill will also remedy a few other deficiencies in existing legislation. One example is that the law relating to British Railways crossings over public roads which did not exist at the time the railway was built is uncertain. The Bill will solve that dilemma since authorisation can be given irrespective of the date of the road. Another example of a difficulty is that unless a non-British Railways crossing happens to be covered by existing statute, or the crossing falls within the jurisdiction of a highway authority, there are no powers to provide appropriate traffic signs. The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to authorise any necessary traffic signs.
1602
I hope that I have made clear to the House why this Bill is necessary. I should like to add, by way of reassurance, a few words on what it does not do. I am aware that there is general interest in level crossings and, in particular concern about their safety. First, let me say that this Bill does not touch on the question of what level of protection is appropriate at a crossing. It only seeks to provide an appropriate legal and administrative framework for any modernisation which is deemed necessary. Secondly, the Bill will not lead to unnecessary expense. The initiative for proposing modernisation will rest with the operator who will be responsible for the costs of the work. Thirdly, the Bill does not provide powers to restrict hours of operation of a crossing or to close it. It will not, therefore, restrict the rights of road users using level crossings.
This is a modest measure. However, it is fair and useful and is widely welcomed by those whom it will affect. There has been consultation with a wide range of interested bodies which has revealed considerable support for its intentions: indeed, no one has raised any objection to them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—(Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.)
Underhill: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships very long, but I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the way in which he has explained the provisions of the Bill. He has explained its purpose and that it fills a gap. It is something that is badly needed. He described it as a modest measure. However, I think that having heard his explanation noble Lords will agree that it is an important measure. My only purpose in speaking on the Motion is to indicate that although it is a Private Member's Bill I hope that not only will noble Lords support it but that the Government themselves will give it their wholehearted blessing.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, for the very lucid way in which he has described the Bill which he is putting before your Lordships this afternoon. I am also grateful to him for bringing the Bill forward and to the honourable Member for Gateshead East who launched the Bill in another place. I should like to add a few words of support. This is a worthwhile measure which will remove the wasteful anomaly of different legal and administrative controls applying to the modernisation of level crossings, depending on their circumstances. Railways have to be authorised to cross roads on the level, and modernisation can be needed to improve the safety of crossings, to make the railway cheaper to operate or to speed the flow of traffic using the crossing. To enable itself to modernise crossings the British Transport Commission, the forerunner of the British Railways Board, took the powers which have been described to us in the 1957 Act. These were added to in the Transport Act 1968. However, as the noble Lord said, neither of those two Acts is normally available to railways other than British Railways.
There are many railways not covered by these powers, but none of them has access to the straightforward

1603
procedures for modernising level crossings which British Railways enjoy. To British Rail, the costs of an order under the relevant Acts are minimal, but any other railway operator who wants to modernise his crossing has either to promote a private Bill, or apply for a light railway order. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, has said, the delays and expense involved in using either of these methods are considerable. To the Government that state of affairs seems to be somewhat invidious, and I very much welcome the Bill because it will resolve this anomalous position.
The Railway Inspectorate have recommended the introduction of a measure such as this since the 1978 report on level crossing safety drew attention to the gaps in current legislation. Unhappily, pressure on parliamentary time has prevented anything being included in Government legislation, and so I very much welcome the noble Lord's bringing forward the proposals contained in the Bill. I also understand that consultation has revealed that those directly concerned welcome the Bill and that no one has expressed opposition to it. The Government fully support the noble Lord in his sponsorship of the Bill. May I express the hope that your Lordships' House will give it a very speedy passage?
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Underhill and to the noble Minister, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for the support that they have expressed for the Bill. I am confident that it will receive the fullest support of the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Truck Acts (Repeal) Bill [H.L.]
5.46 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In bringing this Bill before your Lordships from the Cross-Benches, I have been encouraged by the non-party repeal group. It has three purposes: first, by the simple device of repeal to slim the statute book which has become grossly inflated until, like a fat man, we can no longer see where we are putting our feet. Secondly, we wish to reinforce Her Majesty's Government on the urgent need to set limits to endless talk and to speed action. Our third substantive aim is to remove an obsolete barrier to spreading payment of wages by a variety of more modern, economic and safe methods than by carting £1,000 million of notes and coin around the country every pay day.
The origins of the Truck Acts take us back to a vanished world peopled by such ghosts as the bagmen, the petty foggers, the butties and other middlemen who paid workers in goods or in tommy tickets that could be exchanged only at the company store or truck shop which belonged to their employer. "Truck" apparently comes from a French word "troc" meaning barter, and it sometimes served a useful purpose in earlier centuries when people lived and worked in remote districts away from towns or markets. But it was open to the obvious abuse of any monopoly and became the target of public policy as early as 1411 when a local ordinance required Colchester weavers to
1604
be paid in gold and silver rather than in merchandise or victuals.
The Truck Acts (Repeal) Bill would decently bury the carcases of five outdated laws listed in the schedule. The 1831 Act in its time replaced no fewer than 19 statutes by a wide prohibition against contracts for artificers' wages being specified in other than "current coin of the realm". Its 27 clauses applied to a dozen specified trades and excluded agriculture and domestic service. The 1887 Truck Amendment Act extended protection to all manual workers covered by the Employer and Workmen Act 1875. The 1896 Act strengthened protection against deduction from wages. In 1940 a further Act was necessary to protect employers against some of the resulting anomalies—for example, where meals were served at work. Finally, the 1960 Payment of Wages Act permitted payment in postal orders, money orders, cheques or direct bank credit in place of cash. But it allowed these alternatives to cash subject to three conditions: first, that the employee agrees in writing to forgo cash; secondly, that he can withdraw that agreement at four weeks' notice; and thirdly, that the employer provides a full statement of gross wages and deductions.
Reflecting on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I imagine that at some Liberal seminar on the theme of "Forward from 1831" this legal outline might be puffed up to sound a progressive and satisfying development. The reality is less flattering to our parliamentary forbears. As was made clear by the American scholar Professor Hilton in his standard work entitled The Truck System, most of these laws were out of date before they were enacted. Thus the practice of truck has been extinct for more than a century and the only patchy remnants of any value in this legal rag-bag relate to deductions from wages.
It is central to my case that deductions from wages could be far better dealt with under the quite separate Contract of Employment Act 1963 and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. In the contemporary world of written contracts of employment, it should be straightforward to protect everyone, not just manual workers, against unauthorised deductions by extending the right of appeal to industrial tribunals. In this way we can satisfy what matters in our obligations under the International Labour Organisation and the European Social Charter.
The Truck Acts are not merely an historical curiosity and therefore apparently beloved by the Liberal Party as the museum for lost causes. The law as it now stands has become a positive nuisance. It is like the decayed remnants of some long dead corpse that has been resurrected to serve a purpose wholly different from its original intention. As a non-lawyer, I hope to make clear what is the central fallacy in the modern interpretation of the Truck Acts and the resulting error, as I see it, that was embodied in the Payment of Wages Act 1960.
The plain purpose of the historical campaign against truck was to ensure that workers were not paid in goods. The aim was never to guarantee that they were paid in some specified form of money. Indeed, the 1831 Act said that the contract was to be made in cash. Of course, in the 19th century coins were the

1605
standard medium of exchange, just as today cheques, bank cards, Giro, and direct debit are the predominant means of payment. Even so, in 1831 Section 8 of that Act provided that workers could be paid by a cheque drawn on the Bank of England or on any other note-issuing bank within 15 miles of their place of work.
This neglected provision completely explodes the case of those TUC Luddites who want to go on discussing and negotiating for ever to delay action on the switch from cash to credit transfer. The key safeguard of the 1831 Act and subsequent Acts, was not cash in the form of coins but generalised purchasing power in place of payment in unwanted goods. It was only the accident of the 1844 monopoly of the Bank of England over the issuing of notes that invalidated Section 8 of the 1831 Act and made the Payment of Wages Act 1960 necessary. Yet this latest Act now works to slow down the development of those very modem means of payment through the banks that were its original justification.
In 1983 the chief obstacle to progress in various forms of credit transfer is the unjustified requirement that not only must every worker give written permission to be paid by cheque, but that he can at any time change his mind and at four weeks' notice insist on cash. Thus, we find that a complex system of law evolved over 400 years to prevent a forgotten abuse can, 150 years later, be brandished to obstruct developments beneficial to workers no less than to the economy and to society.
Is it any wonder that we lag so far behind America and Europe, with 13 million British earners still paid by the week and over 10 million paid in dangerous, clumsy and inefficient cash? The Central Policy Review Staff in 1981 doubted whether the Trucks Acts were high on the list of obstacles to further progress. With rather more direct knowledge, employers have called for repeal of the Truck Acts as a barrier to modern methods of payment. Among the leading supporters of this Bill I am pleased to quote the Confederation of British Industry, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the Engineering Employers Federation, and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors. No less impressive, the Institute of Personnel Management has supported repeal of the Truck Acts as an overdue step towards obliterating the increasingly meaningless distinction between wages and salaries, as between workers and staff.
More than 20 years ago the Karmel Committee urged repeal. Since then the banks have improved their services, including more flexible opening hours and wider access to cash dispensers. Further developments are already on the way. I believe that few initiatives would give stronger encouragement to the rapid extension of an efficient, modern banking network serving the entire population than the repeal of these backward-looking statutes. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Harris of High Cross.)
5.55 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time;
1606
to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to give the Bill a Second reading until consultations on the document published by the Department of Employment entitled "Proposals for updating the law relating to the payment of wages," have been completed.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, should have allowed his imagination to roam, as it did, in the direction of way-out Liberal seminars that I might have attended. The truth is really very different. I simply want to suggest to your Lordships that at a time when the Secretary of State has only recently issued a consultative document setting out proposals aimed at bringing the law on the payment of wages up to date—and interested parties have 10 more weeks in which to respond—it is better that the House should have the benefit of knowing the views of those concerned and, indeed, the Government's response to those views before it reaches any conclusion on this matter.
In my opinion, the Government have been wise to seek the widest possible measure of agreement before proceeding further in the matter. The consultative document makes plain that there is already a general consensus that the payment of wages by cheque or by direct credit transfer rather than in cash brings, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, also said, benefits to employers, to employees and to the community. The responses to an earlier document issued by the Central Policy Review staff in 1981 showed that there was also general agreement on the need for faster progress to be made in this direction. Therefore it seems to me that it is entirely understandable that the Government should now consider that changes in existing legislation are desirable.
For my part, I believe that the distinction made in the Truck Acts in the last century between manual workers and others is now altogether out of date, and that every opportunity should be taken to bring the conditions of employment of weekly wage earners more closely into line with those of salaried staff. In this I heartily agree with what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to say. Such harmonisation is, in my view, badly needed and would contribute greatly to the improvement of industrial relations in this country. So for that reason alone—and I am sure that there are many others, as those of your Lordships who have read the consultative document will no doubt agree—there is a strong case for reforming the law.
At the same time it is surely important to ensure that as far as possible any legislation which is introduced to take the place of the Truck Acts should be up to date and should provide adequate safeguards for all employees, whatever their status, and it should not be arbitrarily imposed on the very substantial numbers of people in this country who are still paid in cash. As I understand it, it is the purpose of the current consultative exercise to meet just those criteria. The process may well reveal points that none of us has yet thought of but which bodies like the TUC and the CBI are in the best position to uncover. It is surely pointless—this is the point on which I feel very keenly—for consultation to be undertaken, unless there is the intention, before reaching a conclusion, at

1607
least to take account of the views that are then expressed. Yet in this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has made plain, we are being asked to accept in principle that the Truck Acts should be repealed without any suggestion that something might be put in their place. With the greatest respect to him, I do not think that it will do this House a service if we acquiesce in that now.
Finally, I noticed in the Official Report of the proceedings in another place last Friday, at col. 1254, that objections were raised to the Second Reading of a Bill couched in almost exactly the same terms as this one. Indeed, as far as I have been able to establish there is only one difference, and that is the substitution in this Bill of the word "repeal" for the word "abolition" in the other one. I therefore very much hope that in the light of the objections raised in another place for what I have felt obliged to say, for reasons which I trust your Lordships will think sound, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, having moved his Bill, will, at the end of the debate, agree to withdraw it so that it will not be necessary for my amendment to be pressed.
Moved, That the bill be now read a second time; to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to give the bill a Second Reading until consultations on the Document published by the Department of Employment entitled 'Proposals for updating the law relating to the payment of wages,' have been completed.".—(Lord Rochester.)
6.2 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I think we owe a debt of gratitude and sincere thanks to Lord Harris of High Cross for the trouble and very moderate way in which he has moved this Bill. I shall, quite shortly I hope, recommend that this House gives it a fair wind. I shall also deal to some extent with the amendment.
There is general agreement that in this field Britain lags very sadly behind many other of her industrial competitors. This is an Act which has stood on the statute book since 1831; Judge Karmel commented on it and recommended that it should be abolished more than 20 years ago, but it still stands there. I hope that we can decide that we have a task, therefore, to nibble at the restrictions and overcome the difficulties and abolish this Act.
Everyone would agree, whether he is a wage earner or not, that we have an obligation to do anything to change the law which will discourage thugs from snatching and grabbing wages and often, in doing so, committing violences against those who are dealing with the cash. I think also that it is important, too, that we improve industrial relations by removing hurdles. One of the hurdles is the difference between the manual and the non-manual worker. Everyone who works in industry, as I still do, is hoping that we should move progressively to staff status. This is happening, but one of the difficulties and delays is the Truck Act, and the differentiation between the non-manual workers, of whom there are increasing numbers, to whom the Truck Act does not apply, and the manual earners, to whom it does. Therefore, we are advocating one small reform, to get rid of this undesirable 1831 Act.
I go along with all those who say that it must be made easier to convert from a cheque, if that is the way
1608
of paying, or from paper into cash for those who need that to be done. People going on holiday—of course we have staggered holidays now in industry to a very large extent—and certain other people may need cash at short notice on Thursday evenings; and therefore it will be for local negotiation, if such a freedom were provided, to make sure that arrangements were made for those who wanted cash for special purposes to be able to convert their wages into cash and take it away for their needs.
This would put pressure on the banks, which I always think deserve to have pressure put on them, to have longer opening hours or to have dispensers more easily available, so that cash is convenient not just for the wage earners but for a host of other people in this country who find it difficult sometimes to go shopping on Saturday mornings because they have not been able to get to the banks on Friday. The Co-op sets an example in this and I hope the other banks will follow. Of course, the building societies also are increasingly offering facilities which are better and have longer hours of access, so that again would be an encouragement which would not affect just the wage earners but other people as well.
I recomend the IDS report which I have been studying. It is a very thorough report. It is the Incomes Data Services Limited report, Study 260, which was published in February 1982. It summarises the rather slow progress we are making to date and also the pros and cons of getting rid of the Act.
Now I come very briefly to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Of course, there are always the arguments, which I suppose I have heard since 1950—which makes 33 years' political life—that, "This is the wrong time" or that, "This is the wrong way" of making a reform or that, "It ought to be delayed until someone has been consulted". These are all the standard formulae of which I am sure my noble friend is aware—and I call him that because he is a friend, although I may disagree with him about this. It is the standard formula for delay.
I do not know how the Government will do this as they have put out a consultative document asking for comments and they have given until June for these recommendations to be put in. I do not know whether they will include this in the general employment Act which is coming along, which may be called an industrial relations Act, but clearly Mr. Tebbit as the Minister responsible is framing Acts while consultations are going on. Why include this small reform in a great omnibus Act, in view of the convoy principle that if one has enough ships in a convoy one will always travel at half the speed compared with taking a direct route? I would have thought we should follow the principle of, "Let us get on with this small reform". Let us show that this House is not just a House set for debating and initiating debates; not just a House for delaying, though it has those powers; not just a House for amending, though it often has to do this because of the use of the guillotine in the other place. Many Bills and clauses in Bills would go undebated, undiscussed altogether, on to the statute book if we did not have the ability to amend Bills when they come to our House. But let us show that we are a reforming House.
It may well be that the Front Bench will plead that all this has to go through the ILO in Geneva. If it does

1609
we can give notice now that we do not want to be bound by this. I think we have to give a year's notice. That is not an insufferable objection. Every other country has overcome it—France, West Germany, the Netherlands. Scandinavia, the USA; all our competitors have overcome it and they are all members of the ILO, so we might just as well overcome it, too.
I hope that this House will not brook the delay, however reasonable were the terms the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, used and however logical it all seemed. I hope that as a reforming House we will make this small but important reform, and the great balance of advantage is now to get rid of the 1831 Truck Act. I hope the House will support my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross and will discard and defeat the amendment, should we vote upon it.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to copy the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, for drawing attention to this subject, which, after all, has hung fire since the Karmel Report some 20 years ago. Clearly, successive Governments have hesitated about dealing with this subject. It is a complete anachronism and it is almost entirely obsolete. Indeed, it might almost be said to be spent in many respects.
The problem of manual workers has been mentioned. I am told that a hairdresser is a non-manual worker and a bus conductor is a non-manual worker, whereas a tram conductor is a manual worker. This is an example of how anomaly apparently spreads through the whole system. It is necessary to take a step forward, and I believe that the Government want encouragement. I asked a question which touched on this, I think the week before last, and I was glad that the Government recognised that something had to be done, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and that progress had to be made in this respect. This is important.
There is an argument about the speed with which it should be done, I quite agree, but there are urgent problems of security, and I understand from the report of the CPRS that something like 200 cases of wage snatching took place last year. This is a serious risk which every firm has to face, and there are ways of getting round it. A change would lead to considerable economy in administration. It would greatly aid the saving habits of people. If you have an account, you do not necessarily save, but some of your Lordships may remember that money in the pocket tends to cause the hole in the pocket, and perhaps the money in the bank does not do that quite so forcibly.
There are few more sensitive subjects than that of the payment of wages. I realise that. Indeed, there is not one of us who is not concerned that he should receive some money from time to time. I recognise that there are real difficulties in some cases, and they are not simple. There are remote areas where it is not so easy to get to the banks and banking houses, but I can see no reason why a range of other institutions, whether it be the Post Office, savings banks, building societies, or others, should not be brought in so as to
1610
make it much easier for anyone who wished to cash cheques of any sort or kind.
I rather feel that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is exercising a delaying tactic. Of course, no Government are really going to take action on this—and it will be a Government that will have to take action eventually—until they have had their consultative paper properly examined. There will be a lack of complete agreement as to what should be done. However, what is important is that we should encourage the Government—if necessary dividing the House, which I do not greatly believe in doing—and should say to the Government that something has to be done. They are sitting back—I shall not say doing nothing—and they only produced the consultative document last December, 20 years after the report was made. I hope that this will be an encouragement to them to take a further step.
What will happen will be that those who get accustomed to using banks will find it a great benefit. I can quite understand some people thinking that these great institutions, made of huge blocks of stone, are rather terrifying organisations which do not want to deal with people with small accounts. The bankers have to take a step forward, and have to show themselves more willing, ready and anxious to help people who are in this position. A great burden rests on them to make themselves available both in time and in services to people in this position. I hope, therefore, that the Government will regard this step by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as a real encouragement to take urgently and quickly steps which will be of benefit to British industry.
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, for raising this matter, as I agree with him that the Truck Acts need substantial updating. They were originally enacted in the 19th century for very good reason in order to prevent exploitation of workers by prohibiting payment in kind or illegal deductions from wages. At that time, this meant ensuring payment of wages in cash, on a weekly basis, to manual workers.
Times have changed considerably since those days, and indeed the pace of change accelerates, as we all know. Employers today are removing, where possible, distinctions between manual and non-manual employees. This division will become increasingly irrelevant as production becomes more and more automated. People will be operating keyboards from manager level through the offices and on to the shop floor. Pay depends far more on usefulness to the firm than the type of work that people do. The emphasis today must increasingly be on efficiency so that we can sell our goods in highly competitive world markets. In those circumstances, we need to consider the best and most efficient method of paying people, and indeed one that suits them. There are bound to be negotiations locally to find a system that suits individual firms and their employees. People need protection from exploitation, but apart from that there should be as much freedom from Government interference as possible so that the best local solution can be achieved.
It is important to everybody to move towards cashless pay. Thieves are the only people who benefit

1611
from large amounts of money being carried about, whether it be the highly organised wages snatcher, the pickpocket or the burglar. More and more in the coming years money is bound to be transferred in a cashless manner by cheques, giro, bank cards and the computer. It is going to take time to get used to this idea, but it is bound to come. Already children in schools are learning about computers and how to make them serve their needs. Schools, too, are often operating their own banks so that children can save for outings, holidays and equipment. Children themselves act as bank clerks, under supervision, to get used to the idea of handling money efficiently and economically. These schemes need to be expanded.
Families, too, operate differently. They pay a great many more of their bills, rent, rates, mortgage repayments, gas and electricity, on a monthly basis. They shop, too, on a bulk buying basis, perhaps weekly, more often monthly. They know the cash advantage of buying goods in large packets. The most expensive way of buying anything is the 100 gram packet. You spend your money on cardboard and packaging and not tea, coffee, or soap powder.
Families can achieve more economical budgets on a monthly basis. They need to be helped by the banks. If people are to be paid by cheque on a monthly basis, they need to be able to draw money easily. Cash points, some building societies, Co-op handy banks in their stores, Post Office Giro, all help, but the high street banks need to get back to Saturday opening. It does not need to mean longer working hours for employees unless they wish it. Shops, hairdressers, and restaurants all open at weekends with different arrangements for staff working hours. I am tempted to say that Saturday morning opening could help qualified women bank clerks to keep their hand in one day a week while they are bringing up their families. There are many ways of solving that problem. The Barclays Bank experiment was, I understand, a success, and I hope it will spread.
If alteration can be made to the Truck Acts, we can move away from pay in cash. We can also move towards four-weekly pay. I deliberately say four-weekly, because that is better than monthly pay for the wage earner and the employer. Monthly pay means irregular payments for both. Months are of diflerent lengths, and the five-week month presents budgetary problems for the employee. Thirteen four-weekly periods is better for both, and can iron out pay anomalies, especially for part-time rota workers, so that they know what to expect in their regular pay packets and can budget their outgoings on a more convenient and regular basis. We in Essex County Council have negotiated cashless pay for all but 10 per cent. of our manual employees. However, it is still costing us nearly two-and-a-half times as much to pay our manual, compared with our non-manual, employees. A large amount of money could be either saved completely or put to better use in providing services if four-weekly pay could be negotiated and accepted. That is equally true in industry and commerce, and it would, I hope, improve out prosperity as a nation.
It is clear that the system of the payment of wages needs modernising to meet the needs of the 21st century. The Department of Employment appreciated
1612
that in their proposals in Updating the Law Relating to the Payment of Wages. I understand from that document that we are a party to the ILO Convention No. 95 and must give notice this summer if we wish to make changes. In those circumstances, and being very much behind the spirit of today's debate, I would seek an unequivocal assurance from the Government that they will, while retaining necessary safeguards, make changes in the law as soon as possible to allow a thorough modernisation of the payment of wages for the benefit of the employer and employee, while not breaching our international commitments.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, three main reasons were advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who is to be congratulated for bringing this matter before the House. The first was that it would make for greater efficiency, and we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Plan some interesting figures, including Essex County Council's experience of having only 10 per cent. of their manual employees remaining who are paid weekly in cash, and how much that costs. I understand from the CBI that, in Britain, 59 per cent. of employees are paid in cash weekly, whereas in Germany, France and Australia, which are among our major competitors, it is only 5 per cent., and in the United States it is only 1 per cent. That is an indication that this change must happen, and I think that all who have spoken so far, including the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would agree that it is only a question of how to go about achieving it.
The second important point—it was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and touched on by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing—is the question of achieving a reduction in security risks. That is an important point in view of recent occurrences, not only for the companies but the employees, and I should have thought it was very much in their interests to join the banking system for that reason alone. The third important point which greatly struck me—it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and others—is the question of the harmonisation of terms and conditions for staff and shop floor employees. At present an anomaly exists there, and I have been battling against it for some time. It divides people, and we must overcome it. I am sure that the TUC would agree with that in principle. The question therefore is whether people should be forced to make a change.
I suggest that if this Bill were given a Second Reading, as I hope it will be, and if it suddenly achieved a speedy enactment—which is highly unlikely, even if the Government were right behind it; they do not seem to go very fast in another place with Private Members' Bills, particularly those which start here, and therefore I do not hold out much hope for the measure—it would not immediately mean everybody being forced to be paid monthly (or fortnightly, as has also been suggested) through the banks. It would merely become possible. As my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, whatever changes there might be, they must first be negotiated, and I agree strongly with him on that. It seems remarkable that anybody should think that that would not be the case.
It would enable people to have the alternative choice of being paid monthly through a bank account, with

1613
all the advantages that flow from that. As others have said, the whole proposal will not be a runner unless the banks are open on a Saturday, and the banks should be able to do that. There is rather an anomaly in that connection, anyway, these days. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Trumpington, with her Shops Act, was not going to free the banks as well on Saturdays, but that is by the way. The banks would make a great deal of money out of this, because they would get many more customers; so there should be every inducement to them to make all sorts of investments to enable them to open on Saturdays.
There is everything to be said for the Bill. No harm would be done by accepting it. I am sympathetic towards elderly people, for example, who have become accustomed to weekly payments, and it would be a pity if they were not encouraged to change as quickly as possible, though they should not be forced to do so. I do not believe the Bill would force them, and one hopes that the Government would bring forward any ameliorating legislation in parallel with the Bill, if it became an Act quickly, so as to underline whatever they thought was important. I get the impression from having read the Government's proposals that their ideas are in the right direction. It is just a matter of getting on with it, as Judge Karmel said over 20 years ago. I hope the Bill will be given every encouragement and that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will withdraw his amendment. However, if it comes to a vote, let us all vote for the Bill and against the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House—I apologise for not having added my name to the list of speakers—I rise to add a few words to emphasise the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. If I failed to take my share of putting the maximum pressure on the Government, as adumbrated by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to accelerate an improvement in personal security in money handling, I should feel that the death of anyone involved in a bank robbery would in part lie—that is my share of it—at my door. To maximise that pressure, I shall vote against the amendment
6.28 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: There is no doubting the fact that the Bill is desirable, my Lords. None of the advantages that have been mentioned can be denied. Equally, there are many arguments for concern. Many people do not want to lose their pay packets, and it would not be right to force them to do so. Indeed, there are people who would find it extremely difficult to manage with a bank account rather than cash. While my noble friend Lady Platt talked about bulk-buying, and while she was correct in what she said, many people live on a knife edge and are not capable of buying forward. Many people live a long way from banks—in the depths of Scotland, for example—and there are the elderly who cannot get out to visit the bank. They present, not necessarily insuperable problems but problems which must be considered.
We must also remember that while the banks would gain many more customers they would include many who would not want to be customers. I do not believe the banks would be keen to have customers forced on
1614
them, especially when it would mean them collecting a great deal of money simply to pay it all out the following day to people who do not want to be there anyway.
What is being proposed is happening naturally already. There is a great increase in the number of people who are prepared to be paid by cheque. The development, therefore, is going ahead on its own account. I am not particularly against the Bill, and, whether or not it goes through, greater encouragement could be given to people to persuade them to be paid by cheque rather than in cash. That should be the case, Bill or no Bill. However, if the various considerations are taken into account, the Bill represents a move in the right direction.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, to repeal the Truck Acts is, in our view, premature. The need for the Truck Acts arose out of the unsatisfactory and, in many cases, inhuman conditions of employees during the last century. The abuses which led to the passing of the 1831 Truck Act and the subsequent Truck Acts are, mercifully, no longer present, but before agreeing to the wholesale abolition of the five Acts which Lord Harris's Bill proposes, we should satisfy ourselves that no employee will be worse off by the passage of this Bill. As has been said by many noble Lords, there are very good reasons why employers would want to make payment by cheque instead of by cash. The security problem has been mentioned on a number of occasions and it is clear that in moving substantial amounts of money great cost is involved and it can be potentially dangerous to those concerned; but this must be weighed against the factors affecting the position of those in receipt of cheques instead of cash wages.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has tabled an amendment to the effect that the House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading until consultations on the document entitled Proposals for Updating the Law Relating to the Payment of Wages, published by the Deparment of Employment, has been completed; and it would seem to me that this would be the correct way for the House to proceed this evening. Some 40 per cent. of employees are still paid in cash and we need to ensure that they will not find themselves incurring bank charges if they are paid by cheque; although I should say at this point that if they bank with the Co-operative Bank and keep their accounts in credit they will not incur any charges at all. I have no doubt that in many cases employees will find themselves having to bank with the most convenient High Street bank and not with the Co-operative Bank, and this will involve them in charges if they do not keep more than a minimum amount of money in their account. We must be certain that nobody will be worse off as the result of the repeal of these Acts. These are matters which I am sure, given good sense and reason, we can get round; but I repeat that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is premature.
6.32 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether there are any Standing Orders about advertising in this House during speeches, but, if there were, I am sure

1615
that the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, would have contravened them. However, he did that with very good reason. As this is a Private Member's Bill I shall try to restrict myself to giving, so far as I am able, an unbiased view of the effect which this Bill, if passed, would have; and I shall try so far as possible not to get involved with the merits of the Bill itself. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, upon the simplicity and the brevity of his Bill. Even I can understand it. The areas covered by the Bill range wide. It has implications for all manual employees in the United Kingdom—75 per cent. of those are paid in cash—and for the ability of the United Kingdom to honour specific international obligations which have the force of a treaty.
I think that the question which surrounds the whole area of Truck Act legislation is how much of that law should be reformed and when, given our need to abide by our international obligations. The international dimension, if one may so put it, is that before a law removing the right to be paid in cash is enacted, we would have to denounce the ILO Convention 95 to which we are a party. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing disposes of that rather like swatting a fly on his jacket; but that is a fact. But another ILO Convention, No. 144, says that before denunciation from any ILO Convention it is necessary to consult first on the proposal for denunciation. Therefore, we are at present in the position of having two consultations: one with the TUC and CBI on whether we should denounce the ILO Convention; and the other with interested parties to determine how the law should be improved. It so happens that the closing date for both these consultations is 7th June.
My Lords, perhaps I could deal with the substance of the noble Lord's Bill. My noble friend Lord Selkirk said the Government must not just sit down and do nothing. I can assure him that we are not doing nothing—as I think he slightly grudgingly admitted. The Secretary of State for Employment has initiated a consultative document entitled Updating the Law on the Payment of Wages. This has been issued to a wide range of organisations and employers, not only throughout the country but also throughout various sectors of the economy, and it has been made freely available from his department to any who ask for it.
I think that I should make this clear, particularly to my noble friend Lord Gisborough, whose short speech was, indeed, penetrating. The Government have no intention of introducing legislation which would compel anyone to be paid in a particular way; we are simply looking at the operation of some very old legislation to see whether it has any relevance to modern circumstances. If that results in any change being made to the way in which wages are paid, it would do no more than leave it to employers and employees, or their representatives, to decide what is best in their circumstances. The Government accept the need for effective change to legislation which is both archaic and complex and would make their decision as to how this should be achieved in the light of representations they receive from the consultative document.
The options for reform certainly include those of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. But the Government must
1616
also consider—and this will emerge as a result of the discussions—whether they should continue to make provision, for example, for deductions from pay, for fines and for payments in kind. The options must, therefore, include repeal, partial repeal, repeal with the re-enactment of particular provisions or amendment, or amendment of the existing legislation.
The Bill in front of your Lordships in fact makes no provision for dealing with other, similarly anachronistic, legislation all relating to pay. For example, there are the Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act 1874, which prohibits employers from letting frames and machinery to workers or from making any form of deductions for such purposes; also the Payment of Wages in Public House Prohibition Act 1883, which prohibits the payment of wages to any workman in a public house or other place used for the sale of alcoholic drinks; also, the Stannaries Act 1887, which applies to miners of tinworks in the Stanneries of Devon and Cornwall; not to mention the Coal Mines Regulations Act 1887; the Checkweighting in Various Industries Act 1919, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, or the Wages Councils Act 1979, which contains provisions similar to those of the Truck Acts. All of this legislation really needs to be considered together, and to be reformed together.
My Lords, what ought, therefore, to be the timetable for reform? The Government are doing the correct thing, in our view, in consulting the TUC and CBI about denouncing ILO Convention 95. They will have completed those consultations on 7th June of this year. Under the terms of the Convention it is possible for the states who have ratified the Convention to denounce it during a 12-month period which recurs only once every 10 years. This period happened to begin on 24th September, 1982. So the United Kingdom can denounce the convention at any time before 24th September, 1983. A denunciation will take effect 12 months after its registration by the International Labour Office. Therefore, under the consultation processes which are at present being undertaken, the Government will have from 8th June until 23rd September of this year to decide whether we should denounce that convention. So, my Lords, the fact is that we are bound by this international obligation—which has the force of a treaty—until at least the end of the summer, or early autumn of next year. If the noble Lord's Bill were passed, it would, therefore, put the United Kingdom in contravention of its treaty obligations under the ILO Convention.
That is not all. The United Kingdom is also bound by Article 4 of the European Social Charter of the Council of Europe, which requires Governments,
"to permit deductions from wages only under conditions and to the extent prescribed by national laws or regulations or fixed by collective agreements or arbitration awards.
The present Truck Acts, with all their faults, provide the vehicle by which the United Kingdom complies with this particular requirement, and if we proceed with the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, we shall put the United Kingdom in breach of the European Social Charter, because his Bill removes all the safeguards regarding deductions which are in the Truck Acts.
As I have said, and as your Lordships know, the two International Labour Conventions and the European

1617
Social Charter have the force of international treaties, and they are legally binding obligations. So, even if we were enthusiastic about the merits of the noble Lord's Bill, I do not see how we could pass it because to do so would put us out of line with our international obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, seeing this problem, then comes out with his amendment—an extraordinary one, if I might say so. If his amendment had been (which it is not) to move, "That the Bill be read six months hence", that would effectively kill the Bill, and I assume that the Liberal Party did not wish to be seen to kill what was essentially a liberalising Bill.
So the noble Lord puts this amendment down, declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the consultations have been completed. In other words, the noble Lord could have phrased his amendment to say, "This House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading until 8th June". My researches have not discovered whether this form of amendment is unique, but my guess is that it is. It is certainly extraordinary and, I would suggest, totally confusing. We cannot, as it were, "stop the clock" on the Bill. Either it gets a Second Reading or it does not. If the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, thinks it wrong for the Bill to pass now, then he should vote against it. If he wants the Bill to pass, then he should vote for it. But he really cannot sit like Humpty Dumpty on top of the wall and wobble—and hope to fall both ways.
So the problems are: first, how much reform should there be; and, secondly, when should it be? I really do think, with the greatest respect to noble Lords who have spoken, that the Government's way forward is the correct one: to have consultations, then to reform all this old legislation rather than just parts of it, and to reform it in a way which enables us to do so in accord with our international obligations.
Having been, I fear, somewhat of a wet blanket to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, I can assure him that the Govenment share his view that the law on the payment of wages is overdue for reform. The Government would like to be sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but for the reasons which I have explained the Bill, if enacted, would be neither suitable for our international commitments nor necessarily appropriate for our domestic requirements.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will consider, with his customary courtesy and fairness, whether it is in the best interests of all those who are affected to pursue this particular Bill at this particular time. I would advise the noble Lord that it would not be. That is my advice to the noble Lord. Whether or not he takes it is, of course, entirely a matter for him.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I should like to thank all the speakers who have taken part in this, I think, admirable and brief debate. I do not think that a good case has been made out for the amendment, and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, gave any reference to the merits of the present Truck legislation. Nothing I have heard suggests the least difficulty about giving the Bill a Second Reading and continuing at Committee stage the discussions about
1618
the single issue of deductions. In view of the Minister's most amiable advice on these matters, and also in view of his splendid attack on the pretext of the Liberal amendment, I want, if I may, to offer him a warning, if it is not impertinent. My warning is that he may find that his advisers are making rather heavy weather of the international conventions and charters. Having poured over these stupefyingly mundane documents in recent weeks, I find them to be mountains of bureaucratic pomposity, signifying very little indeed.
For example, let us come to the ILO Convention No. 95, the date of which is 1949. We discover that its key article (Article 8) is partly reproduced as Article 4, Section 5, of the European Social Charter, about which we heard a good deal from the noble Earl. Both these remarkable documents that we are in danger of violating say nothing more than that deductions from wages shall be permitted only to the extent allowed by national laws, regulations, collective agreements or arbitration awards. If I may say so, it is difficult to see how such solemn trivia could be taken seriously by anyone who is not paid a fat fee to keep a straight face when he reads it. In Britain, we already have written agreements of terms of employment, and we have put on employers the duty to itemise deductions from wages. We have appeals to industrial tribunals for unnotified deductions, and we have civil remedies before the county court. If more is necessary, it should not be diffcult to graft it on to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, so long as that inflated statute survives.
Certainly a coherent solution to these problems cannot be cobbled together from the scraps of Truck Acts concerned with quite different and now wholly extinct practices. These Acts will have to be abolished—there is no question of that. They will have to be obliterated and repealed before there can be new reconstruction. So why not call the bureaucratic bluff and repeal these old Acts? In the alarming jargon of international bureaucracy, I would urge the Government to "denounce" the ILO Convention No. 95 and, for all I know, Conventions 1 to 94 at the same time, in order to save postage. If we do inadvertently put the Government offside in terms of international obligations, we should simply be generating more pressure to get onside again, with up-to-date and relevant legislation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt the noble Lord only to correct him, because he is always totally fair. It would not be inadvertently that we were putting the Government off-side.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, in sober truth I believe that too much is being made of all that, and of course the Minister's advisers and the international bureaucrats have a great interest in mystifying us all and alarming us if we appear to be wanting to take what seem to be quite sensible steps. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said so forcefully, 20 years after the Karmel Committee urged the repeal this amendment seeks to prolong further delays. I have noticed before this tendency on the Liberal Benches to shield behind caution and compromise as a pretext for indecision and inactivity. If we are serious in wanting progress,

1619
there are few better ways of encouraging the Government than by resisting this amendment and giving the Bill a Second Reading.
I should like to say to the Minister, with my customary fairness, that it is to the credit of a Conservative Government that on Truck, as on other issues, they show signs of awakening to the advantages of radical change. It is notable from the speeches we have had that the case for radical action came from the Conservative Benches and the case for the dragging of feet from the Liberal and Labour speakers.
We are still paying a high price for our tardiness in adapting to new needs and new opportunities. I suggest that our attitude to this Bill and to this amendment should be taken as a measure of our readiness to turn our backs on nostalgia for the past and to rise to the challenge of still glittering prospects for economic and social progress. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is so gracious and well-advised as to withdraw, I shall urge all those who do not owe him some loyalty to vote against his equivocating amendment.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am sorry that I should have been accused of exercising sinister delaying tactics. I had hoped that in my opening speech I had made it sufficiently plain that I think there is need for the law in relation to the payment of wages to be changed. It simply is the case that I do not think it right, as I also hope I made plain, that, a consultative exercise having been embarked upon, the House should today agree in principle to the repeal of the Truck Acts without thought of there possibly being need for something to replace them and before taking account of the views expressed during the course of consultation.
There seems to me to be little between what I was trying to say and that which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, speaking for the Government, himself said, until he came to his closing remarks, and I should have thought in some sense that he would feel that my amendment would provide a means for the Government, in the light of what their representative said, as it were, to get off the hook. He has not seen it in that light. I understand what it is that he has said. I do not want there to be a difference between us in this House simply on grounds of procedure and I am perfectly willing, that being the case, to withdraw my amendment.
But in so doing, I must make it plain to the House that I see no other way of making the point that I wish most strongly to make again; namely, that it would be quite wrong for this decision to be taken in principle now by the House, before the results of consultation have been established. There is no other way, if I withdraw this amendment, to make that point than to vote against the Bill. So, in withdrawing this amendment, I must make it plain that that is the only alternative left open to me and I would advise the House, in that situation, to take that alternative.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a second time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 36.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Beloff, L.

Molson, L.

Brougham and Vaux. L.

Monson, L.

Cathcart, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Colgrain, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Onslow, E.

Craigton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crathorne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dormer, L.

Rugby, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Glanusk, L.

Salisbury, M.

Greenway, L.

Selkirk, E.

Halsbury, E.

Slim, V.

Harris of High Cross, L. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Spens, L.

Ironside, L.

Swinfen, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Marley, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bishopston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mersey, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rea, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Stone, L.

George-Brown, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read a second time accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Bill
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I cannot begin to tell your Lordships what a relief it is for me to commend to your Lordships a Bill that has already passed through all its stages in another place. This Bill, which was introduced with all-party support by my, honourable friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, represents a modest but beneficial reform of licensing law. It is not a substantial enlargement of licensing law but a rationalisation of a small area of it. It follows in general the Erroll Committee proposals but has more safeguards. Broadly similar provisions have worked satisfactorily in Scotland since 1976.

1621
Although some of the Bill's provisions are detailed, its policy is quite simple. It will require the licensing justices in England and Wales to grant to representatives of organisations and their branches which are not carried on for private gain occasional permissions which will authorise them to sell intoxicating liquor at functions connected with the activities of the organisations. As many of your Lordships will know, under the Licensing Act 1964 if an organisation—let us say a parent/teacher association organising a modest wine and cheese party to raise funds for a school—wishes to run a social function at which drink is sold, it must engage the services of a publican or other holder of a justices' on-licence, because such holders are the only persons who may apply to magistrates for an occasional licence. The organisation is thereby deprived of profit from the sale of drink. If the organisers of the function simply go—as many undoubtedly do—to a local supermarket and buy a few cases of wine, and then sell it on their own account, they commit an offence for which the maximum penalty is a fine of £200 or six months' imprisonment, or both.
As I have said, the Bill is based largely on proposals made in 1972 by the Erroll Committee, the departmental committee on liquor licensing of which my noble friend, Lord Erroll of Hale, was the chairman. In its report the committee said that they had some difficulty with the position of small organisations which, because they had in effect paid all or a sizeable proportion of the bar profits of their functions to the occasional licence holder, felt resentful at gaining little or no financial benefit from that particular branch of their activities. The committee also mentioned that small organisations frequently found it very difficult to interest existing licensees in their functions. From my experience, this is still very often the case. In proposing that there should be a simpler and more flexible system for organisations whose sole concern is to operate a bar for their own enjoyment and incidental profit on a few occasions during the year, the committee emphasised that their proposals would reserve the general principle that for longer and more elaborate occasions, a more professional approach was necessary.
I will now briefly describe the main features of the Bill. Clause 1 empowers the licensing justices to grant up to four permissions in a year to an officer of an eligible organisation or to a branch of such an organisation. An eligible organisation is one not carried on for private gain, and this would include many charities, local community associations, churches, and constituency organisations of political parties. In granting applications, the licensing justices must be satisfied that the officer is a fit and proper person to sell liquor and that he is resident in their licensing district; that the place where the function is to be held is suitable for the sale of drink; and that the sale of drink at the function is unlikely to result in a disturbance, in disorderly conduct, or to cause annoyance to local residents. These are important safeguards, and your Lordships will know that the justices are experienced in considering such matters when dealing with applications for the granting of liquor licences.
1622
Clause 2 sets out the procedures to be followed in making an application for an occasional permission and for its hearing by the licensing justices. To enable the application to be properly considered, the applicant will be required to submit his application at least one month before the function to which it relates. And in order that the police can consider whether to oppose the application, the clerk to the justices will be required to send a copy of the application to the chief officer of the police. The application will generally be heard by the licensing justices at their next licensing session. It will then be open to those who wish to oppose an application to state their objections.
Clause 3, read in conjunction with the schedule, creates various offences triable only summarily and punishable by fines. These offences reflect safeguards contained in the Licensing Act 1964 for the protection of young persons and for regulating the conduct of licensed premises. Thus it will be an offence for a holder of a permission knowingly to have sold intoxicating liquor to a person under 18 years of age except for consumption with a meal, or to allow such a person to consume it in a bar. There are also provisions aimed at preventing drunkenness or violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct taking place on the authorised premises. To enable the police to exercise a proper degree of supervision, they will have a right of entry to the authorised premises during the hours specified in the permission.
Clause 4 deals mainly with interpretation of the Act, applies certain provisions of the Licensing Act 1964, and makes consequential amendments to that Act. Clause 5 gives the Act its Short Title and extent and provides that it will come into force three months after Royal Assent. My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill does not represent any major relaxation of the licensing laws. I firmly believe that the sale of drink needs to be controlled and that permission to do so needs to be restricted to those persons who can satisfy the licensing justices as to their suitability. This my Bill does, and establishes proper safeguards for preventing alcohol misuse.
Those of your Lordships who are in contact with the licensing trade or who read the trade press will know that the National Union of Licensed Victuallers are opposed to this measure. Their opposition is based on two premises. The first is that it will deprive licensees of a proportion of business at a time when the trade is suffering from the wider economic recession. Their second objection is that the sale of drink should be restricted to those who are professionally competent and who have satisfied the licensing justices as to their suitability to manage licensed premises.
On the first point, this Bill's function is to tidy up a very small part of the law which is widely abused at present. It does not concern itself with the economic factors. With regard to the licensed victuallers' second point, an applicant for an occasional permission will also be required to satisfy the justices as to his or her suitability. As to professional competence, I think there is a difference in scale between running a public house or licensed restaurant and simply organising the sale of drink occasionally at a social function like a wine and cheese party. I am convinced that voluntary organisations will continue, as they always have done, to engage the services of the trade for their larger

1623
functions. I believe that what I have said will allay the fears of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers. I certainly hope so, as my previous experience of this organisation has always been on the happiest basis, and I have nothing but admiration for their hard work and their very real contributions to charities of all kinds.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the Government for the help which has been given in the drafting of this Bill. The licensing law is complex and any changes need to be well thought out. I believe that with the safeguards contained in the Bill many worthwhile organisations will benefit from it, and that it will not contribute to any worsening of the serious problem of alcohol misuse. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.13 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, after the vast range of different subjects your Lordships have been called on to grapple with today, it comes as something of a relief to have reached this particular subject, and that is not just because it is the final item on the Order Paper; it is much more because, after all that has gone before, your Lordships are perhaps in need of refreshment, and that is precisely what this Bill provides for. So it is a congenial topic, I think, to reach just before the Easter Recess.
I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, not only on her timing, but also on having brought this Bill before your Lordships and on the way in which she has introduced it. Our licensing laws, as any lawyer knows, are a minefield for the unwary, because they contain a mass of intricate detail. I think the noble Baroness has shown quite plainly that she has mastered that in the very clear way she has explained the Bill's provisions and steered us through the minefield.
I welcome the Bill because I believe it will perform a very useful service. I do not intend to dwell on the principles behind it because these have been dealt with by the noble Baroness. As she said, it stems in part from a proposal of the Erroll Committee, and that is a recommendation in itself, for theirs was a very thorough inquiry and report. So perhaps it is the case that the Bill has matured in a rather fine cask and is of a particularly good vintage.
No doubt we have all received the circular letter from the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, to whom the noble Baroness has referred this evening, expressing their opposition to the Bill. I can, as indeed the noble Baroness does, understand their fear that their livelihood might in their view be affected. But in the first place it is the case, I think, that it has become increasingly difficult for organisations to find licensees ready to provide them with the service of applying for licences and looking after the sale of drinks at their functions. Also, I believe their fears to be misguided, for—this is at least an equally important point—the vast bulk of the functions this Bill seeks to help simply would not merit the services of the publican anyway; these functions would be far too small to interest him.
1624
So, under the present state of the law, without this Bill either those events would not take place at all, I suspect, or, like so many cheese and wine parties or perhaps bottle stalls at summer fetes as well, they would continue to go ahead while the law, or its enforcement officers at least, turned a benevolent blind eye upon them. In neither of those cases would the licensed victuallers stand to benefit anyway. So I believe it is better properly to provide for these functions within the law. I share the admiration expressed by the noble Baroness for the licensed victuallers' organisation.
I have only two small queries about the Bill, and they do not need to be answered today. They both arise from Clause 1(4). First, the subsection provides for up to four occasional permissions in each 12 months' period for an "organisation or branch". I am wondering whether that means that each branch can have up to four goes a year and not just that each organisation, perhaps through its branches, is restricted to four events. I assume that it must mean that every branch can have up to four goes, for otherwise there would not be any need to include reference to a branch as well as an organisation in the Bill. I would certainly hope that that is the meaning of the Bill, because it would seem rather useless, in the case of a constituency party, say, to restrict it to, let us say, just four cheese and wine parties throughout the whole constituency per year, those occasions to be spread over however many branches the constituency party might have.
My other point is this. The subsection says that not more than four permissions may be granted in 12 months. I would like to ask for a little clarification on the timing involved—and again, I do not need to have an answer today. It could be that in a particular 12 months' period an organisation or branch has been granted and has held four functions, and then it wants to prepare for the first of its functions in the next 12 months, but because of the timing of the application and of the licensing session the actual grant by the justices needs to be made in the present 12-month period.
It would seem reasonable, I would submit, that the body should be able to obtain permission for that event in the next 12-month period. I just want to be assured that there is no difficulty here and that the words in the subsection "granted … in respect of functions" will enable that to be done. I feel sure that there need be no difficulty here and also that the wording of the Bill is capable of that meaning and of that intepretation. I do not see that these two points need call for any amendment of the Bill at all; it is simply that at some point a little clarification would be helpful.
As I have indicated, I do welcome the Bill. I hope it will receive a speedy passage in your Lordships' House. I would only add that, in congratulating the honourable Member of another place, Mr. David Atkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, we would all agree to join in raising our glasses to the noble Baroness tonight.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate my noble friend Lady Trumpington—I hope I may

1625
call her my noble friend—on the very lucid way she has introduced this Bill and explained it to us. I hope that it will get a very speedy Second Reading.
The reason why I am particularly interested in the Bill is that from time to time I find myself engaged in organising small horse shows and events of that nature in the country, and it is absolutely essential if such shows are to avoid making a loss that spectators are attracted to them. Moreover, the competitors like to be able to show off to people other than themselves what they are doing. One of the main attractions is to be able to advertise that there will be a bar.
In the past it has proved difficult at some of these shows to find a licensee who is ready and willing to operate such a bar. He says straight away that he is going to lose, not gain, from the operation because he will probably have to take his staff away from his public house to put on the bar at the show. Therefore, I feel that this ability to allow the organisers of such a show to run their own bar will be very useful and satisfying. I do not think that it will affect the licensees in their trade at all because as soon as a show—certainly of the kind that I have in mind—becomes large it needs professional people to run the refreshments, and they are automatically called in.
I hope that the Bill is given a Second Reading and I hope that my noble friend will be able to go in peace to Sandwich for Easter and tend her precious flowers without any worries about the future of the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, from these Benches I briefly give my support to the Bill. I support it not only because I have had experience of these matters but also because it is such an obviously necessary new move.
With regard to the licensed victuallers, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, that they need not worry. In my experience the only difficulty about having to go to a publican was to make sure that he went to the magistrates in time. There was one occasion I remember when the publican did not and we nearly had to cancel the party. That was very difficult, as it had been widely publicised. It was not due to lack of support but because he just forgot. He was perhaps not attentive to his duties. This particular publican sometimes found it difficult because it was not always convenient for him to go to the magistrates about something when he did not want to go for any other reason. He had to go about 10 or 12 miles. Altogether, the Bill will save that sort of hassle.
As to whether licensees lose business, I have never found that they want business. They have kindly done this chore merely in order to comply with the law. As regards the "professionally competent" argument, I do not know whether on the various occasions that I have been involved the publicans have been aware that I was the always the wardroom wine caterer to every ship in the Navy in which I served until I became too senior to do it and, therefore, could be said to have a little competence. However, I think there were others who could do the job equally well.
On the whole I hope the licensed victuallers will feel that they are not having bread stolen from their mouths and I hope that the Government will give all
1626
the support they can to the Bill so that it will quickly get on to the statute book without any hassles about amendments or anything like that. I wish it well.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it now falls upon me to indicate the Government's attitude to the Bill. Before doing so I should like first to thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady Trumpington for her clear and helpful explanation of the Bill's intentions. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that with her experience on the bench as a former licensing justice she is particularly well qualified to present a measure of this kind. I am also grateful on her behalf, as well as for the Government, for the support that the Bill has received from the Benches opposite and from my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, that this is a suitable topic on which the House can break up for Easter.
The Bill as drafted is entirely acceptable to the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, raised two points. One was whether each branch of an organisation will be able to obtain four permissions a year. I can tell the noble Lord that that is the case and each branch will be able to do so. His second point was whether it was a year or a calendar year. That is not quite so clear and it is something which we should like to consider. Perhaps that also will satisfy the noble Lord. We will look into it and let him know.
In arriving at the view that we hold on the acceptability of the Bill, we have tried to balance the arguments advanced by those who see it as a relaxation of the licensing law which, by making drink more easily available, could add to the problem of alcohol misuse, and those who argue that voluntary organisations of the kind which would benefit from the Bill are sufficiently responsible to be entrusted to supervise the sale of drink at the social functions which they organise.
The Government are seriously concerned by the problem of alcohol misuse. We recognise that in recent years all the indicators of misuse have shown an upwards trend and that this is costly to society, both in terms of personal misery and in the strain it places on the social services. It is for that reason that the Government have refrained from introducing legislation to liberalise the licensing law. We believe that it would be irresponsible for the Government to take any initiative in this direction in isolation from the wider issues and without regard to our general strategy for helping prevent alcohol abuse. We consider, too, that there needs to be further public discussion on this question. As an aid to this, in 1981 the Health Department published a comprehensive document on alcohol misuse which looks at the different issues and the scope for action by individuals and the Government. It is hoped that in due course the response to this document will enable sensible decisions to be taken as to whether, and if so how, the licensing law might be reformed. But in the meantime (as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has stated on a number of occasions) we have no plans for legislation in this area, and in general we believe that any progress in the reform of the licensing law is most appropriate to Private Members.

1627
During the past few years the Home Office has received representations from many voluntary organisations complaining that they have found it increasingly difficult to persuade licensed victuallers and other holders of justices' licences to run bars at their functions under the occasional licensing procedure. They also feel strongly that this deprives them of the profit which they would otherwise receive if they were able to sell the drink on their own account. We are also aware—although there is no hard evidence to substantiate this assertion—that many organisations either ignore the licensing requirement or try to circumvent the law by including the cost of the drink in the price of the ticket. Although this is still unlawful under the Licensing Act 1964, as many of your Lordships will know, this is widely done. The Government are unaware that such contraventions of the law have given rise to any significant extent to problems of public disorder or alcohol misuse.
As my noble friend has said, a system of occasional permissions has operated in Scotland since 1976. The Scottish Office has informed us that this has operated satisfactorily and does not seem to have caused any social problems. The Home Office has consulted the police, the justices' clerks' societies and the magistrates about the proposals contained in this Bill and each of these bodies has said that it is not opposed to them. In these circumstances we believe that the Bill, if it is enacted, will not add to the problem of alcohol misuse. We consider that the Bill contains adequate safeguards to enable the licensing justices to exercise proper control over the granting of permissions and the circumstances in which drink may be sold. By giving the police the opportunity to vet applicants and to enter authorised premises during the permitted hours this control is strengthened. We should hope that the Bill, if it becomes law, would encourage those organisations which at present sell drink unlawfully to apply for permission, thus bringing them within the law and subjecting their activities to proper supervision. For these reasons the Government believe that the scheme proposed in the Bill has positive advantages and might more appropriately be described as a rationalisation or technical change in the law rather than a liberalisation measure.
As my noble friend, Lady Trumpington, has said, the National Union of Licensed Victuallers has represented that the Bill will have adverse financial effects for its members and the union has also advanced the argument that licensees are the best people to supervise the sale of drink. On their first point, the Government are aware of the effects of the wider economic recession in the drinks industry and we recognise the National Union's concern to safeguard the livelihood of its members. Although they benefit from the occasional licensing provisions of the Licensing Act 1964, it has to be said that it is not a function of the licensing law to regulate competition. In general terms, the Government do believe that licensees are perhaps the best qualified to sell drink in public houses and at large-scale functions. It is likely that they will continue to profit from this business. But I do not believe that voluntary organisations would be unable to supervise adequately sales authorised under an occasional permission. Given the safeguards in the
1628
Bill, together with the penalties to which the holder is liable if he fails to comply with them, I believe that the proposed scheme will adequately regulate the sale of drink at functions selling drink under an occasional permission.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what a cosy way to end the day! May I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken. It is good to finish on a note of all-party agreement and with unstinting Government support. May I wish your Lordships all a very happy Easter, sunshine and a good rest.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motion For Adjournment
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, before I move the adjournment of the House may I, too, from these Benches, wish all noble Lords a very happy and peaceful Easter. I think that everybody would agree that we have had a fairly tough and busy time since we came back after Christmas. May I presume to speak on behalf of all Members of your Lordships' House to pay tributes to the staff and to thank them all, and to wish them, too, a happy and peaceful Easter.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his remarks, and concur with his sentiments. The Government have in fact given us a fairly hard Lent Term. I think that we have sat on more days during this term than we have during similar periods for many years past. I live in the hopes that when we come to the summer term we may be spared some of the very late nights and meeting on five days a week. I hope indeed that the organisation of Government business will be such that we shall have a more relaxed summer term than we have had in some recent years in the past. Of course I join wholeheartedly with the noble Lord in his thanks and best wishes to the staff of the House. I think that they, and all of us, deserve the slight respite—only eight or nine days, I think—before we return on 11th April.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, despite, or perhaps all the more because of, the exchanges of an hour or so ago, I should like to join in wishing all Members of your Lordships' House a happy Easter and a good rest. May I associate those of us on these Benches with what has been said about the debt that we owe to the staff of I this House.

Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust Bill
The Examiner's Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable was ordered to lie on the Table.
King's College London Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent was signified and the Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Commons Registration (Glamorgan) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.

  DATA PROTECTION BILL: IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  DATA PROTECTION BILL: IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  WANDSWORTH PRISON: EXTRA VISITS
  WANDSWORTH PRISON: EXTRA VISITS
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  ST. KITTS AND NEVIS: CITIZENSHIP
  ST. KITTS AND NEVIS: CITIZENSHIP
  EC INSTITUTIONS: NON CIVIL SERVICE APPLICATIONS FOR SENIOR POSTS
  EC INSTITUTIONS: NON CIVIL SERVICE APPLICATIONS FOR SENIOR POSTS
  EC INSTITUTIONS: UK STAFF NUMBERS
  EC INSTITUTIONS: UK STAFF NUMBERS
  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: JOINT ACARD/ABRC REPORT
  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: JOINT ACARD/ABRC REPORT
  STOKE MANDEVILLE HOSPITAL: MEDICAL CONSULTANT APPOINTMENT
  STOKE MANDEVILLE HOSPITAL: MEDICAL CONSULTANT APPOINTMENT
  HEPATITIS A
  HEPATITIS A
  SMOKING: GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING
  SMOKING: GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING
  IONISERS: USE IN NHS ESTABLISHMENTS
  IONISERS: USE IN NHS ESTABLISHMENTS
  RESERVOIRS ACT 1975: IMPLEMENTATION
  RESERVOIRS ACT 1975: IMPLEMENTATION
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: PHILIPPINES LOAN
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: PHILIPPINES LOAN
  SOVIET UNION NORTH-FLOWING RIVER REVERSAL SCHEME
  SOVIET UNION NORTH-FLOWING RIVER REVERSAL SCHEME
  WATER BILL: CONSUMER REPRESENTATION
  WATER BILL: CONSUMER REPRESENTATION
  THE INTERNATIONAL AIR PASSENGERS' ASSOCIATION: REPORT ON BRITISH AIRWAYS
  THE INTERNATIONAL AIR PASSENGERS' ASSOCIATION: REPORT ON BRITISH AIRWAYS
  BRITISH AIRWAYS: FINANCIAL TARGET
  BRITISH AIRWAYS: FINANCIAL TARGET
  MONETARISM: AN ALTERNATIVE
  MONETARISM: AN ALTERNATIVE