Sitting of 10 November 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

      NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
      To be considered upon Thursday 17 November.

    SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

        DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        Orders for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Assembly
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to seek to amend the Northern Ireland Act 1982 to enable the Assembly to play a more effective role in the government of the Province.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is proposing any new political initiatives for Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): The essential requirement remains agreement between the elected representatives of both sides of the community, and I do not see that amendment of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 would produce that agreement.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless he amends the Act it will not come into effect as was originally intended and that, in those terms, the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot advance? If that is his present position and the one that he intends to maintain, what measures does he intend to introduce in the House to improve government in Northern Ireland and to remove some of the difficulties that he saw during the passage of the legislation last year?
    Mr. Prior: Government in Northern Ireland has improved because of the Assembly. I should like to see a
    396
    greater improvement in Northern Ireland by an advance to devolved government. That is not possible unless both sides of the community are prepared to take part. I do not believe that government in Northern Ireland would work if we amended the Act to enable one side to have power without the agreement of the other. Until that exists, we must pursue phase 1 of the Assembly as it is and proceed with generally improving government in Northern Ireland, which I believe most people agree is better than it was.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Secretary of State agree that basing so many hopes on the Assembly is excessively optimistic and that the real problems facing Northern Ireland require a much more radical solution? Will he look sympathetically at the outcome of the discussions centring on the forum in Dublin as a possible basis for a different and more hopeful departure?
    Mr. Prior: It would always be wrong to be too optimistic about any scheme in Northern Ireland. If other schemes and solutions come forward, they will be properly and fully considered. The Government do not lack the will to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. We shall carefully study the extent to which the forum that is operating in the South is likely to produce any solutions designed to help us to achieve a settlement.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's main problem in creating a devolved Government in Northern Ireland has been the formation of the Executive? Is it not proper for the Government now to consider, as an interim step, more law-making powers for the Assembly?
    Mr. Prior: The main stumbling block towards progress in Northern Ireland has been the lack of will by the Unionist parties to attract the Social Democratic and Labour party to become a member of, and to play its part in, the Assembly, and also by the SDLP to sit in the Assembly and participate. That is the real problem, and I do not believe that it would be solved by trying to move towards legislative control separated from executive control.
    Mr. John David Taylor: The Secretary of State spoke of having both communities in the Assembly. Will he confirm that Catholics are participating already, and that he is talking not about Catholics and Protestants but about supporters of a united Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: I am talking about the representatives of the minority communities who seek nationalism through constitutional means. I acknowledge that there are six Catholics already in the Assembly who belong to the Alliance party. I hope that Unionists will accept that that does not constitute widespread acceptance of the Assembly throughout the community.
    Mr. Budgen: What can the Unionist parties do, consistent with their views, to attract the SDLP into the Assembly?
    Mr. Prior: They could recognise that there must be a greater willingness by all the people of Northern. Ireland — regardless of whether they are Unionists or Nationalists, Protestant or Catholic—to accept that the problems of greater peace and security there will not be solved until they come together to work in government and support the forces of law and order. That is what it is all about.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that any proposals emanating from the forum should be seriously considered? Some people fear the implications of the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday. Have not leading politicians in the South in recent months at least recognised the Protestant position in the North, which gives some hope for the future?
    Mr. Prior: I agree that there has been greater recognition in the South of the proper position of the Unionists, which is helpful. But that will have to go some way further if it is to reassure Unionists about their right to remain members of the United Kingdom. We shall keep an open mind on anything emanating from the forum.
    Mr. Archer: Could the right hon. Gentleman display a little more enthusiasm for the forum? While I appreciate that the Government cannot commit themselves in advance of any reports, will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to urge upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that when they emerge the House should be given an early opportunity to debate them? If it is true that the Government do not regard Northern Ireland simply as a security problem, would not that be a way to demonstrate it?
    Mr. Prior: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment and wish him every good fortune in it.
    It is not a question of my being enthusiastic about the forum. The forum was set up in the South and, to my regret, is unrepresentative of the political parties in the North. When we know what is emanating from the forum, the House must decide whether it wishes to debate it. Obviously, the discussions will be important.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, I appeal for shorter supplementary questions and answers so that we may deal with more questions today than was the case yesterday.
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total cost in public funds of running the Northern Ireland Assembly for the past 12 months.
    Mr. Prior: Just under £2·5 million.
    Mr. Farr: Is that not a gross waste of public money? When does my right hon. Friend propose to put in hand steps to wind up the proceedings of the Assembly?
    Mr. Prior: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is no, and the answer to his second is that I have no intention of doing so.

    Frontier Security
    Mr. Maginnisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the additional burden on the security forces for which he is responsible of the continuing withdrawal of Regular Army units from static duties at permanent vehicle checkpoints along the frontier with the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Prior: The deployment of troops in Northern Ireland is an operational matter for the GOC. Current deployments are designed to free more regular soldiers for flexible patrolling in planned operations.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State admit that his unjustified reduction in the number of regular soldiers in Northern Ireland from 10,000 to about 6,000 during the past 11 months has resulted in more UDR men being deployed at permanent vehicle checkpoints along the frontier with the Irish Republic? Is he aware that those men are taken away from their families for long periods, and that those families live unprotected while their men are away from home? Do those men not also take their local knowledge out of the area where it could be put to best use?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's figures for the reduction in soldiers are incorrect. Between 9,000 and 9,500 soldiers are operating in Northern Ireland. Taking soldiers out of fixed vehicle checkpoints and other points, thereby making them more mobile, and replacing them with UDR men has helped security in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that we must have the best camouflaged Army in the world?
    Mr. Prior: I am delighted to hear that.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that his present security policy has failed completely in Northern Ireland, and that he needs to change it forthwith?
    Mr. Prior: That is a great insult to the troops and to the efforts made by hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the country. If the hon. Gentleman would do a lttle more to keep peace and quiet in Northern Ireland, that would be helpful.

    Irish Congress of Trade Unions
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): My right hon. Friend plans to meet the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in 28 November 1983.
    Mr. Parry: When the Secretary of State meets members of that committee, will he tell them of the Government's plans for reducing the appalling level of unemployment in the Province, which is even worse than on Merseyside?
    Mr. Butler: I am sure that that matter will arise because of the concern shared by all in Northern Ireland about the levels of unemployment. The Northern Ireland committee is well aware of what the Government are doing. It contributes through such bodies as the Industrial Development Board and the Northern Ireland Economic Council to bring about some improvement in the position. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there were signs of encouragement in the significant reduction in the last figures.
    Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister satisfied that the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State are doing all that can be done to bring the trade union movement in Northern Ireland into the talks about the future of the Province, and especially about its future stability? Does he believe that trade unions have a real and positive role to play in dealing with the generality of Irish problems?
    Mr. Butler: Where trade unions are involved in economic matters and in seeking to improve the economy, which will contribute to greater stability, I agree that they are playing a part.
    Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that co-operation between the North and the South in industrial relations or any other economic matter can only be beneficial to both communities? That does not necessarily entail restricting co-operation with Great Britain. Will he propose to the Government of the Republic the establishment of a North-South economic development council?
    Mr. Butler: The Northern Ireland committee is part of41the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, so there is continual dialogue between trade union members north and south of the border.
    As I have said previously to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), there is no intention of introducing a single industrial development agency.

    Maze Prison (Breakout)
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive Sir James Hennessy's report on the breakout of prisoners from Her Majesty's prison, Maze.
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about security at the Maze prison.
    Mr. Prior: I understand from Sir James Hennessy that most of the evidence has been obtained and is now being analysed. However, further inquiries could be necessary. I know that Sir James and his team are continuing to give the inquiry the fullest priority but it is not possible to say for certain how long it will take. Until the report is available I cannot comment substantively on security at the Maze prison, except to assure the House that, as I indicated in my statement of 24 October, some improvements are being effected in the light of the experience gained on 25 September.
    Mr. Brown: While I fully understand that my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate Sir James Hennessy's report and appreciate his assurance that some improvements in security measures have been implemented, is it possible for him to outline the nature of the security changes that have been made at the Maze prison?
    Mr. Prior: There have been two improvements—one is to the locking devices for the main gate and the other is the further protection for prison officers in the main control room of H-block, where a man was shot during the last outbreak. Those are the two improvements to date, but it is early days.
    Mr. Canavan: In his statement to the House on 24 October the Secretary of State described the Maze as the most secure prison in Northern Ireland. Which is the least secure?
    Mr. Prior: They are all, I hope, more secure than they were.
    Mr. Watson: What is the ratio between prisoners and prison officers in Northern Ireland, and how does that ratio compare with that for England and Wales?
    Mr. Prior: There are 3,000 prison officers in Northern Ireland for 2,500 prisoners, and at the Maze there are 1,000 prison officers to 850 prisoners, which is more than a 1:1 ratio. This compares with one prison officer to 2·4 prisoners in England and Wales and, in maximum security prisons in England and Wales, to 1:1·3. There is no question of prisons being understaffed in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Maclennan: Since the Secretary of State refused in the House of Commons to accept political responsibility for the escape at the Maze, there has been a serious escape, that of Samuel Crowe from the Belfast city hospital. Does the right hon. Gentleman also propose to refuse to accept responsibility for that?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir, and I do not need any lessons in responsibility from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: As well as the report from Sir James Hennessy, the Secretary of State requested reports from the Chief Constable and the GOC in Northern Ireland. Will any part of the findings of those reports be published?
    Mr. Prior: So far I have received oral reports from both the GOC and the Chief Constable. Further discussions have taken place, and a number of these points will be relevant to the Security Committee of the Assembly when I next meet it.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the H-block system, as designed and intended to be run, would have made it the most secure prison system in western Europe? Does he also agree that it was only the demolition of the defensive mechanisms of the H-block, as a consequence of the concessions that the Government gave in the aftermath of the hunger strike, that enabled these people to escape?
    Mr. Prior: I agree with the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions but he would not expect me to agree with the second. This matter is being examined by Sir James Hennessy, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the report.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that the Maze is as secure as Buckingham palace?
    Mr. Prior: That is not a question that I have to answer.

    Superstores
    Mr. Beggsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Her Majesty's Government will introduce measures to restrict the growth of new foreign-based superstores in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir.
    Mr. Beggs: What measures do the Government intend to take to protect small family businesses from the unfair competition of large superstores and chains of superstores throughout the United Kingdom which, because of their size, are able to purchase goods at lower prices than those obtainable by small businesses?
    Mr. Butler: I share the sympathy that the hon. Gentleman expresses for small shopkeepers, but one has to bear in mind the benefit to the consumer of the operation of supermarkets. If there is unfair competition it is open to the Office of Fair Trading to take action, which it has in two recent instances in Northern Ireland.

    Propaganda (Counter-measures)
    Rev. Martin Smythasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support the Northern Ireland Office is giving to individuals and groups seeking to counter adverse Republican propaganda internationally.
    Mr. Prior: We provide extensive briefing and advice on Northern Ireland for individuals and groups visiting the United States and other countries, and diplomatic posts are also ready to provide guidance on the spot. I have myself recently returned from a visit to the United States.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, as it backs up some of the developments, especially his speech on the west coast of America. Is this not particularly important in view of the recent court decision and the statements thereon, and is it not important that we continue to keep up the pressure to put our case across?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, everything that can be done needs to be done. I found that there was a growing understanding of the problems of the United Kingdom in its attitude to Northern Ireland. But, for all that, I have found some of the remarks of the last few hours extremely offensive.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend assured himself that there is the fullest co-ordination of this support between his Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because there is always a danger of falling between two stools when two Departments are involved?
    Mr. Prior: I saw the consuls-general in Boston, San Franciso and Los Angeles, each of whom has within his consul an Ulsterman working full time on behalf of Ulster, both on the inward investment side and in putting forward the Ulster view. I was impressed with the quality of those people and the interest that the consuls-general were showing.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend ask the American Government to appeal against the sentence recently delivered on Owen Canon and Danny Morrison, more effectively to counteract the adverse propaganda and publicity?
    Mr. Prior: This was a bizarre affair from beginning to end. That is the only word that I can use to describe it. We must draw a sharp distinction between the views of the Administration and those of the Department of Justice in this respect. Whether or not there are any further representations from us about the appeal is a matter for our contacts with the Administration, although I hope that I have expressed the view of the House on the remarks made following that trial.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Nicholsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce measures to mitigate the serious effects on the Northern Ireland dairy sector of the current European Community proposals.
    Mr. Butler: It is too early to say what, if any, measures might be necessary. Negotiations are still a long way from completion. I think we would be wise to wait for the outcome of the Athens summit and the price fixing thereafter.
    Mr. Nicholson: Does the Minister accept that any further erosion of agriculture in Northern Ireland would have a dangerous and damaging effect not only on agriculture but on its ancillary industries? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to resist further damage to grass-based sectors of agriculture, mainly in the milk and dairy sector?
    Mr. Butler: There is little doubt that the Northern Ireland dairy producer would tend to suffer worse than any if the proposals were to go through in their original form. However, it is important to wait and see what is finally negotiated. If it is necessary to take some balancing action, the Government will have to consider that in the light of events as they develop.
    Mr. William Ross: In view of the recent reports that the EC is cooking the books on the rebate sought by the Prime Minister, does the Secretary of State believe that the Common Market will be sympathetic to the proposals on Northern Ireland agriculture, and will we not eventually be forced back on national measures to defend our industry?
    Mr. Butler: What is important, first, is that the Commission should be aware of the impact of any proposals on United Kingdom agriculture as a whole and also on Northern Ireland agriculture. My noble Friend the Earl of Mansfield, who is responsible for these measures in Northern Ireland, is ensuring that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is aware of the position.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Minister accept that, no matter what the final outcome of the EC negotiations, there will be a curtailment of milk production? That being so, and as Northern Ireland milk producers have no alternative means of livelihood such as is available to producers elsewhere in Europe, will the Minister ensure that at this stage their special circumstances are taken into account by our Government in the negotiations?
    Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter part of the question is in what I said a moment ago. There is overcapacity and an over-supply in milk, which is proving far too expensive. Some measures have to be taken to curtail production.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will not go beyond the requirements of the European Court and previous commitments by the British Government by letting in sterilised milk and unfrozen pasturised cream as well as UHT milk—a policy which is causing considerable anxiety?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the anxiety on that point, which is a somewhat different matter. The Government have made their position clear. We have had to accept the ruling of the Court. We are taking measures to ensure that there is no risk to human health through the importation of that very restricted group of milk products.

    Armagh Prison (Screening of Prisoners)
    Ms. Clare Shortasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will install metal detectors at Her Majesty's prison, Armagh, for the screening of high security prisoners when they leave and re-enter the prison.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Hand-held metal detectors are already in use as a security aid at Her Majesty's prison, Armagh.
    Ms. Short: Is the Minister aware that the introduction of strip searches of the women prisoners at Armagh gaol has caused deep offence to the prisoners and to the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that the governor made it clear that the reason for the introduction of the strip searches was the discovery of some keys in the prison and his anxiety to exclude guns, knives and similar objects? Does he agree that those objects would be better found by installing high-quality metal detection devices than by the offensive searches that take place at present?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot believe that strip searching is a pleasant experience, either for the prisoners or for those who carry it out. However, I am convinced that it is necessary, in the interests of security at Armagh and other prisons, for us to have that procedure available to ensure security.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend remove the impression given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that these searches are restricted to Republican prisoners?
    Mr. Scott: Strip searches are available in all prisons in Northern Ireland and are used according to the judgment of the governors of those prisons. Perhaps I might put a further point to the hon. Lady. Metal detectors are of no use in tracing explosives.
    Mr. McNamara: Was it not rather strange and sudden that after so many years, because of one minor incident, a prison governor should have gone off in the way he did and introduced this most rigorous system, causing great dissatisfaction among the people concerned, and in many cases creating more problems for the security forces than existed before?
    Mr. Scott: As the hon. Gentleman knows from questions that he has tabled, there have been further discoveries of illicit materials as a result of strip searching.
    Mr. William Ross: Can the Minister give the people of Northern Ireland an assurance that no guns are floating around inside Northern Ireland prisons now?
    Mr. Scott: All that is humanly possible is being done to ensure that no illicit material gets into the prisons in Northern Ireland.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister agree that what is needed in Northern Ireland is tighter security inside the prisons, rather than lighter security?
    Mr. Scott: Of course. We want maximum security both within and at the perimeter of our prisons, and we do our best to ensure that.

    Scheduled Offences
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been received in prison in Northern Ireland having been convicted of scheduled offences in the past 12 months.
    Mr. Scott: Of the 1,867 persons committed to prison under sentence in the 12 months up to 30 September 1983, 476 were sentenced for scheduled offences.
    Mr. Canavan: How many of those people are in prison because of the evidence of "supergrasses" who have been bribed by the police and given immunity from prosecution? Does he agree that law and order is being brought into disrepute, through a system of so-called justice in Northern Ireland that is grossly inferior to the standards of justice in England, Scotland or Wales?
    Mr. Scott: Questions about evidence from converted terrorists is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and not for me or my right hon. Friend. I utterly reject the basis of the supplementary question, which I believe is quite disgraceful.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Can the Minister say how many of those who were found guilty of such offences received non-custodial sentences?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot say without notice. I would be very surprised if many people who were convicted of scheduled offences received non-custodial sentences.
    Ms. Harman: Does the Minister accept that reducing the opportunities to the right to a jury trial through having people tried for serious offences by a judge alone undermines respect for law and order? Does he agree that by restoring jury trials he will restore more respect for the administration of justice, and not provide a fresh source for existing grievances?
    Mr. Scott: I do not believe that anyone would lightly change from the system that exists in the rest of the. United Kingdom, but I am convinced that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland it is necessary for us to do that. On the other hand, we are having a comprehensive review under Sir George Baker of the workings of the emergency provisions legislation, and we should await his findings before we say anything more on the matter.
    Mr. Flannery: Can the Minister give us an assurance that perjured murderers supergrassing, possibly on other murderers, are not being paid money to do that? Or are people being put in prison because of the so-called evidence of perjured murderers who are being paid?
    Mr. Scott: I utterly reject the basis of that supplementary question. As I have already said, any detailed questions about payments are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, not for me.
    Mr. Archer: I do not invite the Minister to anticipate Sir George Baker's report, but, as Mr. Dermot Walsh's survey in 1981 found that 40 per cent. of the cases tried under the Diplock procedure have no connection with terrorism, will he keep an open mind on the proposal that the Attorney-General's certifying out procedure should be replaced by a certifying in procedure so that there is no assumption that what appear on the face of them to be normal offences should be tried without a jury?
    Mr. Scott: I am sure that Sir George Baker will have seen that evidence or allegation—as well as others—and will take it into account in his findings.

    Small Dwellings (Acquisitions)
    Mr. A. Cecil Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will adjust the limiting value of £15,000 for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts to take account of the rise in prices.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I am not aware of any need for increased public sector provision of home loans, given the substantially increased volume of building society money that has been provided for mortgages in recent years. I am anxious to maintain the impetus towards greater home ownership and will be glad to look into cases of difficulty in securing home loans from the private sector.
    Mr. Walker: There has been no movement in the limiting factor of £15,000 since 1978, and I hope that the Minister recognises that. Will he look with sympathy on the fact that in some instances people cannot get mortgages from the Housing Executive or from the other statutory agencies, and bear in mind that this procedure is useful?
    Mr. Patten: What is important is that the demand for home loans should be met. At present there is no evidence that it is not being met. I am pleased to say that the figures for private sector building in Northern Ireland are at record-breaking levels. Last year building societies lent £270 million in Northern Ireland, and so far this year they have lent £165 million.

    Agricultural Grants
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the reason for the delay in payment of approved claims for agricultural grants; and what steps he is taking to eliminate the backlog.
    Mr. Butler: Several factors contribute to the delays, including an increase in current claims of over 20 per cent. compared to the previous six-month period, and the large number of claims that have had to be returned to applicants for further information or because the necessary supporting documents were not attached.
    Action, including increasing the number of staff available to work on these schemes, was taken during late summer, and the backlog of outstanding claims is now being reduced.
    Mr. Powell: As it was known many months ago that these delays were accumulating, why were not steps taken earlier to prevent hardship to legitimate claimants through delay in receiving their payments and to avoid the necessity of the noble Earl having to tell me at the beginning of November that he looked forward to a reduction in the time taken to process these claims?
    Mr. Butler: I have referred to a number of circumstances, but, in fact, new staff were taken on for training in anticipation of problems of this kind. I equally regret the delay in these payments and the effect that that will have on the finances of the farmers who are affected. However, I can give no hope of the backlog being eradicated within a short period.
    Mr. William Ross: Why is it necessary for farmers in Northern Ireland to give prior notification before they start working on grant schemes in Northern Ireland, when such notification is not required in Great Britain?
    Mr. Butler: It was because of the absence of prior notification that a great deal of money was spent on concrete roads last season, and we believe that it is a sensible precaution to take in Northern Ireland, and one which does not occupy a great deal of officials' time.
    Rev. William McCrae: Does the Minister agree that this delay in payment is causing great hardship and concern in the agricultural community?
    Mr. Butler: I agree that in certain cases where it applies there is clearly some pressure on the personal finances of the farmers involved. We are doing all that we can to speed up the process.
    Mr. Archer: The Prime Minister always enjoys boasting about the number of civil servants who have been made redundant by her Government, but does the Minister agree that they are not redundant if there is work for them to do, and that all that is achieved is that the public services suffer and people are kept waiting for money to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Butler: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me say that new staff were taken on and trained for that purpose. One of the problems is that the applicants themselves failed to complete their forms satisfactorily, and about one-third of them had to be sent back.

    Kinsale Gas Field
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects gas from the Kinsale field to be available to consumers in the Province; and what reduction in current costs can be anticipated.
    Mr. Butler: It is expected that natural gas will be supplied to the Belfast area towards the end of 1985 and to Londonderry as soon as possible thereafter. Supply to other areas of the Province will depend on the outcome of independent technical and market studies that I am commissioning. Natural gas tariffs are likely to be up to 25 per cent. below current average town gas prices.
    Mr. Ross: May I congratulate the Minister on the successful conclusion of these negotiations, which represent a great step forward for the Province? Will the gas available be sufficient for present known needs—I think that the agreement has a 22-year term with a supply of 1,720 million therms? Will that be sufficient for present known needs?
    Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I believe that this development will be to the benefit of the Northern Ireland economy and Northern Ireland consumers. We are confident that there is sufficient gas for the period of the contract. We anticipate about a sixfold increase in the consumption of natural gas in taking account of needs.
    Mr. McCusker: If it is essential to hold on to existing consumers to get the sixfold increase in demand and to envisage reducing the price in two years by 25 per cent., why is the Minister insisting that the undertakings increase their prices by another 7·5 per cent.?
    Mr. Butler: For the simple reason that it was a condition of the subsidy to the undertakings that they should increase their prices in line with fuel and labour costs. In order to attract the subsidy retrospectively for 1982–83, it will be necessary for them to increase prices. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the percentage increase in those prices is only a little above that which has obtained for other forms of energy, certainly for coal.

    Scheduled Offences
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will propose that a sentence of imprisonment for the duration of the time when the emergency provisions legislation shall remain in force in Northern Ireland be available to the courts there when sentencing those convicted of scheduled offences.
    Mr. Scott: No, Sir. I do not think the courts should be able to impose sentences the duration of which could be determined by the life of the emergency legislation and which would thus be unconnected with the gravity of the offence or the circumstances of the offender.
    Mr. Stanbrook: As a significant proportion of all those who are convicted of terrorism are subsequently released only to commit fresh terrorist offences., is it not common sense, as well as a means of discouraging violence in Northern Ireland, for them to be kept in prison for the duration of the emergency?
    Mr. Scott: I see no justification for saying that people should be sentenced and that their release should be dependent on the general security position in the Province or on a political decision of this House rather than be linked to the offence that they have committed.

    Secretary of State (Boston Speech)
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech delivered in Boston on 25 October.
    Mr. Prior: Although I gave two short addresses in Boston on 25 October I spoke informally and without a text. I have, however, arranged for texts of the speeches that I made in San Francisco on 26 October and in Los Angeles on 28 October to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Molyneaux: May I express satisfaction over the Secretary of State's co-operation in placing in the Library the fair and balanced speech that he made in San Francisco? May I ask him to commend through the Northern Ireland Office the text of that balanced and realistic speech to those who will be studying these matters in months to come on the basis that it forms a much more realistic approach than many of the documents that are currently being circulated?
    Mr. Prior: Without in any way accepting the blandishments of the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that I hope he will read the whole speech and not just the little bits that he likes.
    Mr. Adley: I fully share my right hon. Friend's disgust at the recent court events of which he spoke earlier. May I remind him of my questions to him a year or more ago about the discussions with the American Government on attempting to unify the procedures for extradition and the criteria used in British and American courts——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the Secretary of State's speech.

    Museums
    Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to implement the recommendations of the working party review of museums in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Scott: The Museums and Galleries Commission review of museums and related services in Northern Ireland was issued on 18 October; interested parties have been invited to submit comments by the end of December 1983, and in the light of the views expressed and the availability of resources, decisions will then be taken on implementation.
    Mr. Freeson: Does the Minister agree that the report makes a vitally important point when it argues that the development of the museums would not only create direct employment but would encourage and attract industry to the Province? Does the Minister agree that he should make available the funds necessary for the developments proposed?
    Mr. Scott: That is but one of several important points that are made in the report. I am now waiting for comments and I look forward to receiving them. Then we can move to decisions.

    Scheduled Offences
    Ms. Harmanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will review they list of scheduled offences with a view to descheduling lesser offences and those unconnected with terrorism.
    Mr. Scott: The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is currently the subject of an independent review by Sir George Baker. I intend to await such recommendations as Sir George may make in this, as in other matters.
    Ms. Harman: Does not the Minister regard it as nonsense that offences such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm which might have nothing at all to do with terrorism are nevertheless tried by a judge without a jury as if the offence was to do with terrorism? Does he agree that this brings the law into disrepute?
    Mr. Scott: As I said earlier, that type of allegation is, I am sure, being considered by Sir George Baker. Let us wait for his report.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wardasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Commonwealth Secretary General.
    Mr. Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware of the anger in the country at the latest attempt by the Brussels Commission to distort the figures for the Community budget? Is she further aware that she will have the support of the whole House if she takes the most vigorous action to resist such an underhand means of going about things?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the latest report by the Commission as its contribution to the budget problem is unsound, unhelpful and unacceptable, and we shall say so and act accordingly.
    Dr. Owen: Now that 94 per cent. of the British people want dual control over cruise missiles if they are to be made operational on 31 December and, more importantly, now that 78 per cent. want dual control and are prepared to pay for it, is it not time that the Government reconsidered their position and asked why a broad consensus exists in France over nuclear deterrent strategy, stretching from the Church to the Communist party?
    Mr. Skinner: They have dual control and it does not work.
    The Prime Minister: We debated these matters in the House last week. The main purpose of cruise missiles, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is deterrence. We have the same arrangements now as obtained for many years in respect of nuclear-capable bombers and Poseidon submarines in British waters. The debate in the House last week was conclusive.
    Mr. Needham: Is it not time that the NUM held a ballot on the overtime ban? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overtime ban is doing nothing for the miners or the coal industry? Would it not assist if people such as the Leader of the Opposition helped the democratic process by condemning the ban?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the overtime ban is damaging both to miners and to the mining industry. What we need is a good profitable mining industry with the price of coal as low as possible, so that we can get other energy prices down. The overtime ban is not helping in any way.
    Mr. Randall: Did the Prime Minister agree to the reported resumption of United States arms sales to Argentina? Was she fully consulted by President Reagan on this matter, or has he gone and done another Grenada on her?
    The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware no decision has yet been taken by the United States about the resumption of arms sales to Argentina. As I understand it, first there would have to be certification of human rights in Argentina—that would not necessarily give rise to arms sales later, but it is a condition that would have to be fulfilled before further arms sales would be considered. Should there be further arms sales to Argentina without a cessation of hostilities, it would not be understood in this country. We have protested most vigorously in advance and would protest again if it came about.
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: Since my right hon. Friend's return from Germany, has she had an opportunity to study the text of the excellent Darwin lecture delivered by the Lord Chief Justice last Tuesday in Cambridge in which he called on the British people to go into battle against crime, said that there was a need for strong punishments to combat video nasties and, perhaps most serious of all, suggested that the Government were not taking action to stop heroin drugs coming in from Pakistan?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen what the Lord Chief Justice said about drugs, crime and pornography and I think that the overwhelming majority of people in this
    410
    country approve of what he said and of his encouragement that everyone should help and support the police. As for video nasties, I hope that the Bill that will come before the House tomorrow will receive its Second Reading and go through all its stages as soon as possible.
    Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister had time to study the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill that has been produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)? In view of the purposes of the Bill and the widespread all-party support that it enjoys, will the Prime Minister ensure that a money resolution is attached to the Bill to ensure that it is fully effective?
    The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about a money resolution. I can only remind him that this Government's record of help to the disabled is very good indeed.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister cannot answer that, I am not sure who can. I insist that this is not, and must not become, a partisan matter? Will the right hon. Lady give further consideration to the matter? Does she recognise that the Bill will be of considerable advantage in combating prejudice, disadvantage and discrimination against disabled people, but that without an expenditure commitment——
    Mr. Marlow: How much?
    Mr. Kinnock: As much as it takes to safeguard disabled people. Is the Prime Minister aware that without such a public expenditure commitment the value of this widely supported Bill will be very much reduced?
    The Prime Minister: The matter must be considered along with consideration of the Bill, and my right hon. Friends and I will, of course, give it earnest consideration. In the meantime, I repeat that this Government's record of help to the disabled is excellent.
    Mr. Silvester: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest attack on Christian education by Manchester city council, which proposes to substitute pop songs for Christian hymns and periods of silence for Christian prayer? Does she agree that the protection of the rights of minorities cannot be obtained by bleeding the Christian content out of the school curriculum for the majority?
    The Prime Minister: I saw some account in the press to that effect. As my hon. Friend knows, it is still the law of the land that there should be an act of worship and of assembly at the beginning of every school day. Anybody who tries to deprive children of that or of the pleasure of singing hymns may deprive them of an experience they may never otherwise have.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the growing unease in the coal mining industry has brought about a meeting of the three major trade unions in the industry—the triple alliance—and that that unease has been enhanced by MacGregor's statements about mine closures for reasons other than exhaustion and by Government statements about privatisation? Will she now categorically deny that privatisation statement and discuss with MacGregor the question of closures?
    The Prime Minister: The Financial Secretary did not say that the coal mining industry was to be privatised, but that it would be right for some of the subsidiary activities

    411
    to be privatised, and while the hon. Gentleman might contest that, I doubt whether he would disagree with it. As for the industry in general, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Government have honoured to the full their promise to invest in the future of the coal industry. "Plan for Coal", which was published in 1974, was not honoured in regard to productivity improvements or pit closures.
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Prime Minister take time to congratulate the Secretary of State for Energy on behalf of Opposition Members and million; of pensioners, unemployed and low-paid people throughout the country on his fight in the Cabinet this morning against the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep energy prices down below the rate of inflation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the right hon. Gentleman lost that fight, what plan does the right hon. Lady have for the uprating of benefits and pensions?
    The Prime Minister: I fear that I was not able to hear all of that supplementary. The Secretary of State for Energy is in China.
    Mr. Jackson: After her visit yesterday to the Federal Republic, can my right hon. Friend confirm reports in the press today that the German Government find as unacceptable as we do the Commission's latest proposals on the European budget?
    The Prime Minister: The Federal Republic of Germany holds views very similar to ours on the need to reform the Common Market budget. Its view is that net contributions are the proper measure from which to start.
    Mr. Ewing: Has the Prime Minister had time to study the speech of the director general of the CBI, Sir Terence Beckett, to the CBI in Glasgow in which he painted a gloomy picture of the economy? In view of that, does the Prime Minister hold to her view that the economy is recovering now and will continue to recover?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the secretary general of the CBI concluded his speech by saying:
    "We now have forward momentum"——
    [Interruption.]
    "Inflation is down. Management is more confident about its effectiveness. There is some growth. Wage settlements are down. Productivity is up. Our profits are better and liquidity has improved."
    I could do with more criticism of that kind.
    Mr. Eggarasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eggar: Has my right hon. Friend noted the important speech made by the Financial Secretary last week in which he showed conclusively that the
    412
    introduction of competition and privatisation was good for jobs, good for consumers and good for the taxpayer? Will she assure the House that action on the principles outlined by the Financial Secretary will be a top priority of this Government?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that competition always produces a better bargain for the consumer than monopoly of any kind. That is one reason why we must continue our privatisation programme along the lines indicated by the Financial Secretary.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that when MacGregor, the right hon. Lady's hit man in charge of the coal industry, was speaking—[Interruption.] I can wait until the Liberal and SDP Members are quiet.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is moving on, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wait too long.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need:3 my protection.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Speaker's pet.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that when MacGregor spoke in Nottingham yesterday he said that if miners refused to withdraw the overtime ban he would withdraw the wage increase?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Lady remind Mr. MacGregor that the miners have what is known as a five-day week agreement, which means that they do not have to engage in overtime to obtain a proper wage increase? Will she also bear in mind that if it is right for the Government to put legislation through the House of Commons to allow tax relief for marginal oilfields, it is also right that marginal pits should be kept open?
    The Prime Minister: What an industry can offer in wage increases depends upon its success in selling a product at a price that buyers can afford to pay. The external financing of the National Coal Board is more than £1 billion and of that some £500 million is a straight forward subsidy to the coal industry's losses. I hope that those figures will be borne in mind. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind that there are well over 55 million tonnes of coal on the ground at the moment.
    Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is evident from the way that you handled the House today that you look after the minorities, but it may not have been drawn to your notice that 56 of the 60 questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the Order Paper today were open questions. You may recall that on a number of occasions your predecessor drew to the attention of the House the need for more positive questions. May we have your guidance and advice?
    Mr. Speaker: I share the views of my predecessor on open questions but I have no way of controlling the questions that are put on the Order Paper. They are in order.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill.
TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
Motion relating to the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 16 NOVEMBER — Opposition Day (3rd allotted day—first part): There will be a debate on the damage to householders caused by Government improvement grant cuts, on an Opposition motion. Afterwards, motions relating to Milk Regulations.
THURSDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (3rd allotted day—second part): subject for debate to be announced.
Motions on European Community Documents 6374/83, 6450/83 and 6375/83 on coal and steel.
[Relevant documents: Debate on 21 November: Social measures in the steel industry: Contribution to ECSC Budget 1983–86 Doc. No. 6375/83; 4th Report on aids to the steel industry Doc. No. 6374/83; General objectives for steel 1985 Doc. No. 6450/83. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 78-i (1983–84) paras. 3 and 4; HC 34-vii (1982–83) para. 3.]
Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his autumn statement next week? On what day will that statement be made?
During the first part of the Opposition day next Wednesday the subject is to be the damage to householders caused by the cuts in improvement grants. I hope that we shall have a declaration of policy revising that which has been rumoured.
We also hope that during the debate that the Opposition have initiated next Wednesday the Government will make it clear beyond all possible doubt that they will preserve the traditional method of milk delivery in Britain, which is highly advantageous to both consumers and traders.
We should like a debate in Government time on the scandal of the car tax fiddlers. As a result of Government policy, only 15·75 per cent. of reported offenders were prosecuted or penalised in 1982. That resulted in a substantial loss of revenue, which will be infuriating to honest motorists.
Will the Secretary of State for Energy be back from China by the time that the rise in gas and electricity prices, which have apparently been agreed in his absence, come into effect?
Mr. Biffen: May I take the five points in reverse order?
It is likely that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will have returned by next week to lend his formidable qualities in wholehearted support of the Government's economic policy.
414
I note the right hon. Gentleman's interest in a debate upon car tax and perhaps we can pursue that through the usual channels.
I cannot anticipate the arguments that will be deployed in the debate that we are to have on the milk delivery methods in Britain, but I note the right hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that it will be covered in the ministerial answer to the debate on those orders.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's point on the Opposition day debate on housing and I am sure that he will take it into account in his contribution in that debate.
I confirm that there will be the traditional autumn statement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot say precisely on what day that will be but the matter will be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 204 and particularly to the amendment that stands in my name and those of 30 of my hon. Friends?
[That this House deeply regrets the continuing dispute at the Messenger Group of Newspapers in the North West of England, the behaviour of the Chairman of the Group Mr. Selim Jehan Shah in trying to break freely agreed contracts with the National Graphical Association, and his apparent determination not to allow employees of his companies to belong to trade union; congratulates Reed International and North Cheshire County Newspapers Ltd. in withdrawing financial support for the Messenger Group of Newspapers; believes all trade unionists and others should refuse to receive these free newspapers through their doors and refuse to co-operate in any way with these companies; and calls on all advertisers not to use these newspapers until such time as Mr. Shah and the Messenger Company agree to carry out the terms of the agreement with the National Graphical Association, and respect the rights of employees to join trade unions and work for fair conditions of employment.
To leave out from 'England' to end and add: 'the behaviour of the National Graphical Association in trying to impose a closed shop in circumstances where the employees concerned after a free secret ballot have unanimously rejected it; supports the Messenger Group and its chairman in their right to maintain the democratic right of their employees to be free to decide whether or not to join a union, which is exemplified by the existence of closed shops for both the National Union of Journalists and the National Graphical Association at two of the companies within the Group; and deplores the pressure which was brought to bear on Reed International and North Cheshire County Newspapers Ltd. to sell their shares in the Messenger Group or its associated companies.']
Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday that small firm, which employs only 120 people, had 700 pickets outside its offices and that there was intimidation and harassment? Will the Government, or better still the Labour party, give time for a full debate on this issue and so bring to the attention of the British people this example of the unacceptable face of trade unionism?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is a skilled parliamentary lobbyist. Within the past 48 hours he has brought this

415
matter to the attention of the House in an Adjournment debate. I take note of the point that he now makes, but I regret that I cannot offer Government time for its debate. I understand the importance that my hen. Friend attaches to it and I wish him well in his campaign.
Dr. David Owen: On the third Supply day next week we hope to be able to support the Labour party on the house improvement grants and we hope that on the second Supply day today it will support us in a similar motion, but what is to happen about the fourth Supply day? Is the Leader of the House prepared to continue with the system whereby the Opposition Supply days are entirely decided by the Labour party? As a major priority, in fairness to the House will he now look at the Standing Orders and ensure that the allocation of Supply days is done by the House as a whole, reflecting the balance of political opinion in Britain?
Mr. Biffen: Supply days are operated under Standing Orders which were voted by the House recently and I see no early prospect of their change.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Progress is being made on the re-establishment of Select Committees, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the previous Parliament the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had the largest number of members—13—which proved highly impractical when it came to detailed interrogation of witnesses? Will he consider either an instruction to the Liaison Committee to enable the Scottish Affairs Committee to appoint a Sub-Committee, which it was not able to do in the previous Parliament, or to reduce the number to more manageable proportions?
Mr. Biffen: I will look at that point, but I do not want my hon. Friend to travel too hopefully i this matter.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House prevail on his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to give a clear and concise statement of Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the third United Nations convention on the law of the sea? I fear that our adherence to the United States' position is causing great embarrassment to Third world nations. Could we make our position indelibly clear?
Mr. Biffen: I will see that the point which very properly exercises the hon. Gentleman's mind is brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. David Crouch: The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment are seeking the widest consultation with industry on what are termed the Vredeling and the fifth directive proposals from Brussels. Will there also be an opportunity for the House to be consulted on this matter in the near future with a full day's debate on worker participation, as interpreted in Brussels?
Mr. Biffen: I realise that those proposals are causing controversy. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's request that they should be subject to debate in the House. However, no provision has been made for such a debate next week.
Mr. Jack Ashley: On 27 October the Leader of the House promised my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he would consider a debate on the sale of Times Newspapers Ltd. No
416
exchanges since then have invalidated the need for such a debate. The issues raised are too important to be brushed aside. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give favourable consideration to the need for that debate?
Mr. Biffen: There have been a number of parliamentary exchanges on that matter, and a number of questions have been answered. That being so, I do not feel able to guarantee or offer any Government time for such a debate.
Sir Bernard Braine: During the past fortnight, hon. Members on both sides of the House have presented no fewer than 280 petitions from several hundreds of thousands of their constituents on the subject of doctors ignoring the importance of consulting parents on the treatment of their teenage children. There are more petitions to come. In view of the nationwide interest in the subject, will my right hon. Friend persuade the Minister for Health to make an early statement and, preferably, will he arrange for the House to debate the subject immediately after such a statement is made?
Mr. Biffen: I will draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health. I realise that this topic arouses great feeling. but I also believe that the matter is before the courts.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Leader of the House find time for the Scottish Office to make statements in the House on health matters? For the second time in four days, the Scottish Office has avoided making a major statement by using a planted question. On the issues of blood and the major reorganisation of the Health Service the 72 Scottish Members should have an opportunity of questioning the Minister, as only one Wednesday a month is allowed for Scottish questions.
Mr. Biffen: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point and will make those representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government have no intention of allowing their proposals for legislation on rates to be delayed in any way by internal difficulties with Conservatives in local governmert?
Mr. Biffen: I am innocent enough not to know very much about such things.
Mr. Greville Janner: When can we have a debate on the opening up of the new coalfields in Leicestershire, in particular the Asfordby pit? Can the welcome absence of the Secretary of State for Energy in China possibly be the reason for the Government's inexcusable and disgraceful prevarication in a matter which threatens the entire future of the Leicestershire coalfields and the livelihood of many of my constituents?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to make his speech next Tuesday, on Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Could my right hon. Friend explain to the House when we may expect prime ministerial statements to follow bilateral summit meetings? The Anglo-Irish summit was followed by a statement, but the Anglo-German summit was not. Why was that?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot explain the reasons immediately, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend's point is transmitted to those who can.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister today to reconsider her decision not to visit St. Paul's eye hospital in my constituency in Liverpool? There are currently nearly 500 people on the waiting list of that hospital, including 181 women and 84 urgent cases, yet the authority intends to close a ward and reduce services and numbers of beds to meet the Government's vicious spending cuts.
Mr. Biffen: Putting aside the charge of vicious spending cuts and speaking in a more charitable fashion, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will transmit his request to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: My right hon. Friend gave a characteristically sympathetic reply two weeks ago to my request for a debate on planning and development. Grave concern is being voiced on that issue in all parts of the House and the country. Would it therefore be possible for us to have a full day's debate? A debate on the adjournment would not be appropriate.
Mr. Biffen: I will inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of my hon. Friend's point. As my hon. Friend will realise, Members have various opportunities to pursue such topics.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Could we have a further statement next week on the up-to-date situation in Grenada and in particular on the role of the Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon who, in asking for external intervention and appointing an interim Government with himself as their head, seems to be in breach of the constitution which gave him his job and which was approved by this House?
Can the Leader of the House confirm reports that the British Government's plans to use the SAS to rescue Sir Paul Scoon from Grenada had to be abandoned because of the American invasion?
Mr. Biffen: I simply cannot confirm any of the hon. Gentleman's more exotic speculations, but I assure him that if the situation in the Caribbean next week necessitates a Government statement, a statement will be made.
Mr. Rob Hayward: The last debate on procedure in the House of Commons was held on 19 July 1982. Since then there has been a substantial change in the membership of the House. Could my right hon. Friend allow some time in the near future for a debate on procedure in the House, including the hours that we work and the number of hon. Members in the Chamber?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may not have been present last week when I announced, in response to a request from the Leader of the Opposition, the Government's intention to set up a Procedure Committee.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House may be called upon next week or thereafter to adjudicate upon the article in The Times today by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston). Before he sets up a series of meetings in order to do so, he should check the hon. Gentleman's voting record. Although the hon. Member has complained about
418
the number of opportunities he has to speak in the House, he only managed to vote on 81 occasions out of 332 in the last full parliamentary Session, so he might be hard to find.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that I have any role as an adjudicator. If I have, it is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman will be my research assistant.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend urgently consider the reform of Standing Committee procedure? On any important measure, the first half of the time available to the Committee is taken up with mindless filibustering. If my right hon. Friend had the time to meet me outside Committee Room 11, where the Telecommunications Bill is in Committee, I could give him some horrifying evidence.
Mr. Biffen: There is no horror left for me. My hon. Friend might find that the Procedure Committee will address itself to such matters.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on my suggestion last week that it would be sensible to hold a debate on the purchase of The Sunday Times by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, because of allegations that the figures have been fiddled? While on the subject of fiddlers, will the right hon. Gentleman think again about providing time next week to discuss the appalling issue of the car tax fiddlers, particularly as it probably touches on the rampant way in which this Government have axed civil servants?
Mr. Biffen: In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot add to what I said to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). As for the second part of his question, I cannot add to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend realise that more than 200 petitions have been presented to the House—with more to come—on the subject of doctors prescribing contraceptives without parental knowledge or consent to girls aged under 16, and that those petitions bear hundreds of thousands of signatures? Is he aware that the early-day motion on the Order Paper has attracted 55 signatures in just a couple of days?
[That this House calls for the withdrawal of the 1980 Department of Health and Social Security Revised Health Service Notice (Section G) which advises doctors that they may provide contraceptive drugs or devices to girls under the age of consent without their parents being consulted; and recognises that many thousands of constituents of Right honourable and honourable Members have expressed their opposition to the Revised Health Service Notice by way of public petition.]
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent debate to be held on that important subject, as the whole nation finds it disturbing?
Mr. Biffen: I accept that the topic is important, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot really go beyond what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir. B. Braine).
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have an opportunity to debate the White Paper entitled "Streamlining the Cities", Cmnd. 9063, before 31

419
January, when the consultation period ends? Certain aspects of it, particularly concerning support for the arts, have national implications and concern all hon. Members.
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give that guarantee, but I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. David Winnick: When will the Home Secretary make a statement telling us why the remaining Mosley papers are not being released? Is the Cabinet afraid that such papers will show even more clearly how establishment and Tory circles were involved in supporting Fascism at home and dictatorships abroad? Should not all the papers be released as quickly as possible?
Mr. Biffen: The more that papers are released about that distinguished refugee from the Labour party, the less easy it will be to maintain a conspiracy view of history. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because I suspect that there is a desire in many parts of the House to see those papers published.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Members for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked questions about the petitions that have been presented on the subject of contraceptives being given to girls under the age of consent. Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us presented such petitions in good faith, because we were asked to do so by our constituents? However, that does not necessarily mean that we agreed with the details of the petitions. The procedure for presenting petitions is such that we do not have an opportunity to make such points other than, for example, at this time. Will the Leader of the House take that into account in considering the representations made to him by those two hon. Members?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point.

Defective Housing
3.52 pm
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about defective housing.
On 7 September 1982 my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) announced a scheme for financial assistance in the form of repairs grants or repurchase to owners of Airey houses which had been sold by public bodies and which had subsequently been discovered to be subject to serious or potential defects. On 8 February he told the House that he had asked the Building Research Establishment to study possible deterioration in other types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. The establishment is publishing today an information paper summarising the findings of separate reports on six of the most common types—the Boot, Cornish Unit, Orlit, Unity, Wates and Woolaway designs. A copy of the information paper has been placed in the Library.
The Building Research Establishment has found that the reinforced concrete components in all six types are gradually deteriorating as a result of carbonation of the concrete and, in some cases, the presence of high levels of chloride, leading to corrosion of the steel reinforcement and consequent cracking of the concrete. The great majority of the houses studied were found to be.in a structurally sound condition. There were significant differences in the rate of deterioration both between and within types. Some cracking was found in all the types and the nature of the process is such that deterioration will continue, although in some cases very slowly. All houses of these types will eventually be affected by cracking. Cracking in a proportion of houses will not occur for some years and a few houses may not display any evidence of deterioration for the next 30 years or more.
No conditions were found which were structurally unsafe. Risk to stability would be preceded by visible serious cracking in Boot, Cornish Unit, Wates and Woolaway houses. In Orlit houses, concealed main and secondary beams should be inspected now, if this has not been done already following the Department's letter to local authorities of 2 September 1982. Concealed columns and steel bracing in those Unity houses that have plasterboard or other dry lining should be inspected within the next year. Where serious cracking is present, professional advice should be sought.
The processes of carbonation and attack by chlorides are likely to affect all prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. There are about 170,000 of these houses in the United Kingdom which were built by public bodies. Approximately 16,500 have been sold, mostly to sitting tenants.
I stress that the Building Research Establishment's studies are only of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. The conclusions carry no implications for houses of non-traditional design which use other load-bearing materials.
Private owners will find themselves in a difficult position as a result of the effect of these findings on the value of their houses. The Government have decided to introduce early legislation to provide a scheme of assistance to private owners of houses sold by the public sector and since found to be defective or potentially

421
defective. It will be on lines that are broadly similar to those of the scheme for owners of Airey houses, which is already in existence.
The essential feature of the proposals will be a right of assistance. This will arise where the Secretary of State determines that houses of a particular category built by a public body should fall within the scheme because he is satisfied that, as a result of their design or construction, they suffer from, or can be expected to suffer from, structural defects not discoverable by normal survey at the time they were sold and which have resulted in a substantial loss of value in real terms as compared with the value at purchase. In respect of these houses local authorities will be under a statutory duty to assist either by way of a repairs grant or repurchase.
A grant of 90 per cent. of eligible expenses on repairs is intended to be the main form of assistance. But there will be cases in which repair will be uneconomic, or will not give the house a further useful life of at least 30 years, or will still not make the house mortgageable in the private sector. There will be other cases in which there would be hardship for the owner if repair were the only form of assistance possible. In these cases we propose to lay a duty on local authorities to acquire the dwellings if the owner wishes. Owners will receive 95 per cent. of the defect-free value of the house.
We have it in mind that the scheme should apply to all types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. However, no final decisions have been taken on the initial coverage of the scheme and the BRE is studying six further types to supplement its findings.
In addition to the mandatory scheme, local authorities will be given a discretionary power to assist owners of defective houses which meet these criteria but in respect of which the Secretary of State has made no order requiring the local authority to give assistance. This power will enable local authorities to assist where there are local problems.
The local authority associations will now be consulted about these proposals. I shall be asking them to comment before 16 December on a consultation document which is being sent to them today; a copy of which is being placed in the Library. A Bill to give effect to these proposals in Great Britain will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter. Separate legislation will be introduced for Northern Ireland.
The need for expenditure by individual local authorities on this scheme, and on defective houses remaining in their own stock, will be taken into account in determining their housing investment programme allocations.
The BRE has also studied the Smith house, which uses a different system of construction. A detailed report will be published next month. I shall be considering whether local authorities should be under a duty to give assistance to private owners of that type of house.
The Department is writing to local authorities to inform them of the BRE's findings and of the proposals for legislation. Copies of the letter to local authorities and a table giving figures of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in each local authority area have been placed in the Library.
The Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office will be writing in similar terms to local authorities there. The Scottish Development Department will also be
422
writing to the Scottish Special Housing Association and will be holding consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I apologise to the House for the length of this statement and for the fact that the texts of the seven separate reports which have only just been finalised are not yet available for publication, but I wanted to make a statement just as soon as possible. The reports will be published very early next month, and will be sent to local authorities with a request that they be passed on to private owners of these houses in their areas.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I am sure the Minister is aware that we are not particularly worried about the length of the statement. It is the content that matters, and this is a disgraceful statement. The Opposition had hoped that the Government would be more helpful to those who live in such houses that are defective homes because of the system used to build them. The 16,500 people who have bought their homes will get the support of a 90 per cent. grant, but those who are tenants of local authorities will receive no support.
The Minister's statement means that, under the housing investment programme, local authorities must choose between dealing with the 153,000 defective homes for which they are responsible — the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' report of July 1983 said that the defects would cost £5 billion to correct—and dealing with those that were built by traditional methods. Does that mean that the Minister will punish tenants who have not bought their defective homes, by refusing to give additional aid to the local authorities? Have not the HIP allocations been cut in real terms by 60 per cent. since the Government came to office? Not a shred of hope is offered to the tenants who remain in the projects.
System-built houses were constructed at the request of the Government of the day. I was a member of a local authority at that time and we were urged to encourage system building to deal with the housing problems. The local authorities agreed to do that and subsidies were granted. The Government forced local authorities to build this type of housing. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to all such tenants, but the Minister's statement shows that the Government do not believe that to be so.
Mr. Gow: I do not believe that those who will benefit from what I have said will consider that the Government are behaving unreasonably towards them. I have made it clear that the needs of those who have not bought their homes and therefore will remain as tenants in the public sector will be considered along with other needs when the housing investment programme allocations are made. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement about that programme in due course.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Minister re-examine the way in which he proposes to deal with public sector houses? The Opposition approve of the Minister's suggestions for those who have bought their houses. Leeds has experience of system-built flats which have had to be knocked down. They were built at the request of successive Governments and the ratepayers of Leeds have had to bear the cost. The Minister seems to be suggesting that we repeat that experience. The public sector will suffer, and it should not.
Mr. Gow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given to our proposals to assist those who have bought their homes. I shall consider what he has said about the experience of Leeds.
Mr. John Heddle: I hope my right hon. Friend will accept that his announcement, like the statement in September 1982, will be widely welcomed by those who have bought properties in my constituency and elsewhere throughout the west midlands. Will he confirm that those who have not bought their homes but who qualify under the right-to-buy provisions will have their rights transferred to other structually sound properties? Will he also confirm that where such properties have become blighted the owner can apply to the district valuer to ensure that he receives suitable compensation?
Mr. Gow: It would not normally be possible for a tenant of one of the houses to which I referred in my statement to qualify for the right to buy another house, in which he was not living. Any houses of the type mentioned in my statement which are sold by local authorities will reflect the reduced value of the house as a result of the known defects revealed in the report. The powers of the district valuer are set out in the Housing Act 1980.
Mr. Terry Davis: Has the Minister forgotten that one of his hon. Friends told the House at the end of March that he had asked the Building Research Establishment to add Smith houses to the list and that we could expect a report by May? Why will that report be eight months late? Will the owners and tenants of Smith houses in the city of Birmingham be treated in exactly the same way as the owners and tenants of the other houses to which the Minister has referred?
Mr. Gow: Smith houses are constructed not of structural pre-cast reinforced concrete, but of foamed slag concrete blocks. The Building Research Establishment will publish a detailed report of its study of Smith houses. I shall consider whether local authorities should be under a duty to assist private owners of such houses. If the statutory criteria were met, local authorities could use the proposed discretionary power which I have announced.
Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement on this important subject is very welcome and that he is especially to be congratulated on the provisions to ensure that people who have bought council homes which have subsequently 'moved defective will not be penalised? Is it not a sad commentary on Labour Members that, in contrast with the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), most of them seem to feel that those people should be penalised in some way rather than provided for?
Mr. Gow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The House will have noted the contrast between the views of the Labour Front Bench and those of the former Home Secretary.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister recall that when he visited Leicester he was presented with a brick from a Boot house, of which there are about 1,500—500 of them in my constituency—nearly all of which are occupied by tenants? Will he undertake to provide extra cash to meet the £29 million
424
that the council will need to put those houses into order over and above the grossly depleted grants that it will otherwise receive?
Mr. Gow: I well recall my visit to the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency and I remember receiving the brick to which he referred. On the matter of future allocations, he will have to await a later statement.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my hon. Friend realise how very great the welcome will be for his statement about the mandatory right to assistance and the information from the Building Research Establishment that most of the properties are in good condition? Where there are problems, what steps does he recommend to the occupiers, whether the properties are privately or publicly owned, to prevent further deterioration?
Mr. Gow: The advice of the Building Research Establishment is set out briefly in the summary to which I referred in my statement. The reports themselves will be published early next month and will give detailed advice on steps that can be taken by owners in the private and public sectors to diminish the rate of deterioration. There are no practical techniques to halt deterioration completely, but steps can be taken to diminish the rate of deterioration.
Mr. John Cartwright: Will the Minister show similar concern for the hundreds of thousands of tenants in medium and high rise council flats built by industrialised building methods in the 1960s which are now suffering from major defects such as dampness and condensation? As that type of building technique was pressed on local authorities by Governments of both parties, is there not a Government responsibility to help put the problems right?
Mr. Gow: Within the resources available we shall give what assistance we can.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that constituents of mine who have bought Orlit houses will welcome his statement and the speed with which the Department has responded? Does he agree that it is vital that the compensation to local authorities through housing improvement allocations in the rate support grant should be sufficient, as otherwise this will merely turn the screw on local authorities already in a difficult position?
Mr. Gow: I have listened to the advice given by my hon. Friend.
Mr. John Evans: Does the Minister acknowledge that there are defective house types other than those that he mentioned today? Is he aware that I first brought the problem of Parkinson frame houses to the attention of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State two years ago? Does he accept that owners of such houses desperately need Government assistance to put their properties in order? Finally, where does he expect St. Helens council to find improvement grant finance for owners of such houses when it already has no funds to give improvement grants to anyone else?
Mr. Gow: I acknowledge the special interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in the Parkinson type of house and I have had a meeting with him to discuss the problems in his constituency. It may help the House and people outside if I list the other six types of house that I have

425
asked the Building Research Establishment to investigate. They are Parkinson, Reema, Stent, Tarran, including the Dorran Myton and Newland variants, Winget and Whitson-Fairhurst, including the Lindsay (Ayrshire) variant.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Like other hon. Members, I have not had time to study the BRE report. Will my hon. Friend confirm what he seemed to imply in his statement—that the problem to which the statement relates was caused by a defect in a material or one material interacting with another and in no way by a defect in building design?
Mr. Gow: It is a combination of the two.
Mr. William O'Brien: Given the importance of his statement, will the Minister assure the House that the cost of grants and allocations to be made by local authorities will be met in addition to the HIP allocations and not included in those allocations?
Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman will have to await a later statement about that.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Why was 1960 chosen as the cut-off date? Why is no assistance available for dwellings built subsequently, and why was the BRE not asked to investigate such houses? Does the Minister agree that if all local authorities were to do as mine has done and sell 3,000 council houses financed almost entirely through building society mortgages they would have plenty of money for this and other worthy projects?
Mr. Gow: Prefabricated reinforced concrete houses of this type were not built in significant numbers in the public sector after 1960. I made it clear in my statement that no final decisions about the coverage of the scheme had been taken. It would be possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to widen the coverage if, as I hope will not be the case, any general problem arose with another specific type of house.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: As the Minister has adopted a formula for the compensation of private owners, will he assure the House that the exact monetary equivalent will be available to public owners and if not, why not? Will he also assure the House that reinforced concrete load-bearing structures built after 1960, especially those in tower blocks, are not subject to the same defects?
Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman will have to await a later statement about the total resources available for public sector tenants.
Mr. Dick Douglas: That is not good enough.
Mr. Gow: I have already said that the BRE is investigating a further six types of house, but at present we have no reason to believe that there is any defect which goes beyond the category of house that I have described.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in Leeds who have bought defective houses have been shattered to discover that they are now being penalised due to VAT being levied on these essential repairs? They never expected VAT to be levied
426
when the 90 per cent. improvement and repairs grant was introduced and they have been pressing their case with the Customs and Excise for some months. Can my hon. Friend now tell the House that essential repairs of this kind will be exempt, as his good intentions will otherwise be consistently frustrated by the Treasury?
Mr. Gow: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I shall certainly draw his attention to my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the Government on introducing these measures—they will certainly protect the interests of the building societies. Will the same conditions apply to the BISF houses, of which there are many in south Wales and if not, why not?
Mr. Gow: It will be possible for other houses to be included if the criteria that I described are met.
Mr. Terry Dicks: I welcome the Minister's statement about these properties. However, a much wider problem surrounds the Bison system building developments. My authority of Hillingdon has a major problem with them and is pulling down over 1,000 of these houses. Why is it that successive Governments have not helped with the housing investment programme? Will the Minister reconsider the possibility of a public inquiry into that major national scandal?
Mr. Gow: On 6 October I asked local authorities to satisfy themselves, if they had not done so already, that Bison wallframe houses and flats did not present a safety risk, and to report to the Department. About 25 per cent. of the authorities that own such buildings have responded. When all the replies are available I shall consider what further action, if any, to take.
Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister assure the House that he is speaking for Scotland, too, and does he realise that he is dealing with tenants' fears? If he is trying to calm the fears of those who bought public sector houses, how will he calm the fears of those who continue to live in Orlit houses? Will the Minister give the House a clear, unequivocal undertaking to compensate local authorities for those houses on a replacement cost basis and not on a historic cost basis as soon as possible? Will he move from those houses all the tenants, who may be living in fear?
Mr. Gow: Although the scheme will apply to the United Kingdom and the legislation to which I referred will apply to Great Britain, with separate legislation for Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Douglas: The Minister cannot answer the question.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I welcome the steps which the Minister outlined for the private housing sector. In my constituency a considerable number of Orlit houses were built near the shore, where the decay is more progressive because of the action of the sea air. The local authority has been endeavouring to repair those houses but it is without funds to do so and will have, even fewer funds because of cuts in improvement grants. Will the Minister tell the House when funds will be made available to the local authority to carry out essential repairs, and remove from people's minds the fear to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) referred.
Mr. Gow: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister said that local authorities would be required by law to buy back these houses at 95 per cent. of the defect-free value. Is that the defect-free market value or the market value minus the discount given to the tenant in the first place? Will he provide the same requirement for former council tenants who purchased their homes but who can no longer meet their mortgages and default, and from whom local authorities are not allowed to buy back Their houses, thus making them homeless?
Mr. Gow: We have it in mind that the scheme will involve the surrender of discount during the first five years in the same way as that set out under the 1980 Act, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar.
Mr. Den Dover: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities, including my own of Chorley in Lancashire, have decided to demolish some of their Orlit houses if they do not receive a Government grant? Will the Minister assure the House that he will impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to make grants to local authorities?
Mr. Gow: I have made it clear to the House that when defective houses are in the ownership, or former ownership, of local authorities, the authorities' needs will be taken into account, together with other needs, when their housing investment programme allocations are fixed.
Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that he has told the House that he intends to place a statutory duty on local authorities to assist those who purchased their dwellings, but that he cannot give any commitment that resources will be available to local authorities to assist those who remain tenants of their properties? Does he further agree that he has said nothing about what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to do about the rate support grant and the revenue consequences that local authorities will face when they carry out the provisions of the statement?
Mr. Gow: I repeat what I said. Expenditure by local authorities on this scheme and on defective houses remaining in their own stock will be taken into account when their housing investment programme allocations are determined.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members are pleased about the effect of his statement on private owners, but that, unlike the Government, they are concerned with all tenants and all owners, including local authorities? Will the Minister seriously consider increasing the housing investment programme allocations to the full replacement value of the houses? Nothing else will satisfy the House. Will the Minister give an assurance that if he does that he will make sure that the increase in local authority expenditure is not subject to penalty?
Mr. Gow: I can only repeat what I have said many times. The needs of local authorities affected by the statement will be taken into account when the housing investment programme allocations are decided.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not true that before the 1960s—and since then for some houses—large private enterprise firms ripped off local authorities and other institutions in the public sector and took taxpayers' money to provide faulty products? Will the Minister tell us precisely what recompense will be made to the local authorities for the replacement cost? What massive profits were made by those companies when they were ripping off the taxpayer, the ratepayer, the tenants and the local authorities? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can also tell us how much they paid to the Tory party in political donations during all those years.
Mr. Gow: I cannot reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question without notice. On the first part of his question, the truth is that when the houses were built in the 1940s and 1950s—and some before the war——
Mr. Skinner: Why not?
Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question and I am trying to answer it. The truth is that when those houses were built, our technological knowledge was such that we did not realise that there were inherent defects in them. Now that our knowledge is greater, we have discovered the defects. We shall not make the same mistake again.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the biggest problem in the past decade has been the uncertainty of local authorities. tenants and purchasers about their future? Does he further accept that the weasel words
"The need for expenditure … will he taken into account"
will do nothing to deal with that uncertainty? Will the Minister take this last opportunity to come clean with the House and say that the Government will provide the money to put right the defects which they caused 10 and 20 years ago through their directions? It is the fault of no one but the Government.
Mr. Gow: I cannot go further than the statement that I have made.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that many householders are suffering from exactly the same fears and financial problems as the householders whom he mentioned in his statement because of inadequate shale infill beneath their houses? Is he aware that that gives rise to terrible cracking in the foundations, affecting the walls and floors? Is he further aware that many householders, such as some of mine in Thornaby, do not have adequate recourse to aid through the National House Building Council, the local authority or the builder of the house? Will the Minister see whether he can be of assistance in dealing with that problem?
Mr. Gow: I am aware of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In many houses of the type that he has described it would not have been possible, by a normal survey, to discover the defects that have occurred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be able to include some houses of the type which the hon. Gentleman has described within the categories that will qualify under the scheme that I have announced. I give no undertaking about that, but it is possible that we w ill be able to include it.
Mr. Jim Craigen: As I am not satisfied with the Minister's statement that the Scottish

429
Development Department is merely sending out letters to Scottish local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association, may I ask what provision is being made for Scottish Office Ministers to make a statement in the House about the differences in Scottish law practice, because today's statement drives a coach and four through the traditional understanding of house purchase, not only in England but in Scotland?
Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Heffer rose——
Mr. Paddy Ashdown rose——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has not previously been rising to ask a question. Mr. Heffer.
Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that he and some of his hon. Friends on the Government Benches have been deliberately distorting what has been said by the Labour Front Bench and by my hon. Friends? There is no difference between the view that I expressed and the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). My hon. Friends and I are pleased that those who have bought their homes will receive a 90 per cent. grant. The argument is that it will go only to those who have bought their homes. We have not heard one word from the Government that council tenants who have not bought their homes through local authorities will get assistance. That is the point that we are making. There is no contradiction between what I said and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South said.
The Minister has said three or four times, I think, that the position of local authorities on housing investment programmes will be taken into account. As it appears from Minister's statements previously that there will be a reduction in HIPs, can the Minister give us an assurance that that will not happen? Can he state that, on the contrary, local authorities will receive extra money either to deal with the defects or to establish a replacement programme for these buildings? Can he give an assurance that that will happen, and not hide behind his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Gow: My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that we shall look forward to reading the Official Report tomorrow, when we can judge whether his views coincide with those of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).
The reply to the second part of his supplementary question is that I have told the House already, and I repeat, that the needs of individual local authorities, as a result of the statement I have made, will be taken into account in determining their housing investment programmes. As to the totality of that programme, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement.

Nuclear Waste (Billingham)
4.33 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
"the rapidly rising anxiety among the constituents of Stockton, North due to reports received in the last 24 hours that low-level radioactive waste has already been deposited on an open tip in the Billingham area."
I consider the matter specific because this is an open council tip in daily use. It is situated in close proximity to major housing estates with many thousands of residents, and it is a site frequented by youngsters. I consider it important because the reports have already been confirmed today; they have been validated.
The reports refer to two consignments of radioactive waste being placed on this open council site. The second consignment consisted of two 3-tonne lorry loads composed of 30 metal drums which were placed in a hole under the supervision of a Department of the Environment inspector who had been sent up from London. The 30 drums were covered by no more than 1 m of household rubbish.
I consider the matter urgent because, after the drums had been covered with 1 m of rubbish, the 20-tonne bulldozer which had dug the hole was driven back and forth across the rubbish to compact it, an exercise that may or may not have caused serious rupture to the buried drums and so have irradiated the water table throughout the area.
I consider the matter specific, important and urgent because the dumping of the consignment was authorised by the Department of the Environment exercising plenary powers and overruling the refusal of the local authority to grant planning permission. This practice runs counter in every respect to the assurances given to the House by the Secretary of State on 25 October. Already the site could have become a threat to the health of more than half the inhabitants of the Cleveland basin. I appeal to the House to help allay the justified and justifiable fears of the Cleveland community.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the rapidly rising anxiety among the constituents of Stockton, North due to the reports received in the last 24 hours that low-level radioactive waste has already been deposited on an open tip in the Billingham area.
I fully understand the concern that this causes the hon. Member and his constituents. I have listened carefully to what he has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you are aware from previous comments in the House and from the statement that was made by the Secretary of State for the Environment a short time ago about the dumping of nuclear waste in Billingham that deep anxiety has been caused not only in both the Stockton constituencies, but throughout the whole of the Cleveland area. I should be

431
grateful if you could give guidance to us as to how we might raise this matter further in the House in an effort to give Ministers an opportunity to allay the very real fears of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has heard my ruling. I cannot go further than that. He has been here for many years and I am sure that he knows the opportunities that are available to Back Benchers to raise important matters.

Calling of Members (Newspaper Article)
4.36 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise this matter because it affects your judgment in the calling of Members. When I last raised the matter of how you would call representatives of the SDP and the Liberal party, I understood that you gave an indication that discussions were taking place between yourself and the leader of the liberal party as to what your judgment might be. An article has appeared in The Times today in the name of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) which I fear impinges upon your responsibility to the House. I should be extremely grateful if you could give your views on that article so as to allay any fears that might be in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have read the article with care and although to some extent I can understand the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) the article can be read another way. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johston) was complaining about the way in which the SDP leader or leaders were able to catch your eye in comparison to the opportunities that Liberal Members had. I regard it as a possible veiled attack on the Social Democrats by the Liberal party.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 27 October, after a debate on the National Health Service in which no Liberal was called, you said in response to a point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce):
"I am sure that the House would consider it extremely unfair if in every debate … the Chair had to call a member from the Social Democratic party and one from the Liberal party."—[Official Report, 27 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 528–9.]
My intention in writing the article that is published in The Times today was to make it clear to the public at large that this part of the House, which represents 25 per cent. of the electorate — 7·5 million people — would, indeed, consider it profoundly unfair if there were not a willingness to call a member of the Social Democratic party and a member of the Liberal party in every debate
In making this case, Mr. Speaker, I was in no way trying to impugn your character or to raise any doubt about your wish to be fair.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make it clear that the Opposition deplore the fact that the hon. Member for Inverness, Maim and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) has gone to the press to make what anyone who has read his article will see clearly is an utterly ill-founded, unwarranted and petulant attack on you. Is it not a fact that, procedurally, the alliance seem to want the penny and the bun and having got the bun they now want to keep it and eat it?
Does not the Liberal article in The Times today show quite clearly that in the previous Parliament the alliance was given extra time for extra seats which it obtained by

433
the shabby process of political defection — a process which involved and represented not one extra Liberal or Social Democratic vote in the country? Is it not utterly consistent with that precedent, which the alliance welcomed at the time, that their now depleted ranks in the House should be reflected in depleted speaking time?
On the basis of the figures in the article written by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—he said that the allianace now have only 4 per cent. of the seats in the House — are you not in danger, Mr. Speaker, of being over generous by giving them 5 per cent. of the time as that would represent 25 per cent. more time than they are entitled to?
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Irrespective of the merits of the argument, is it not deplorable that an hon. Member should write an article in a newspaper criticising Mr. Speaker? Criticism of Mr. Speaker in the House is most severely limited—it cannot be made except on a substantive motion. How much more so must any criticism be limited when an hon. Member makes that criticism by writing in a newspaper which has absolutely no connection with the House?
The importance of the case is that the House is the guardian of the subject's rights and liberties and that it cannot discharge that function unless there is respect for the Chair outside the House and within it.
Furthermore, may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that during the recent general election campaign, most hon. Members were opposed by alliance candidates. That is how they were described on the ballot paper although some were Liberals and others were Social Democrats. I have forgotten which was which in my constituency. Nevertheless they all stood as alliance candidates. If every party in the House is allowed as of right — as is suggested — to have a Front Bench spokesman in every debate and if Privy Councillors are also given a chance to speak, Back Benchers will be completely squeezed out.
434
It is essential that whoever else is involved in this controversy, it should not be Mr. Speaker. Therefore, might I respectfully suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that he take the initiative in this matter and discuss it with party leaders. I make that suggestion as someone who had the honour in the previous Parliament to hold the office which my right hon. Friend now occupies. That would be the correct way to discuss the issue. It should not be discussed through the Chair, much less through the correspondence columns of the press.
Mr. John Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House has listened with interest to the final point made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas), If the Leader of the House wants to discuss the proper method of approaching this matter, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) would be only too happy to listen to him.
The article appears in The Times, which is forever telling us and the world that it is the voice of the British establishment. Is there not an issue of whether The Times is involved in a breach of privilege for publishing the article in question?
The issue of right hon. or hon. Members acting as spokesmen on behalf of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties concerns all members of other parties. The Liberal candidate at the general election in my constituency and the Social Democratic candidate for the St. Helens, South constituency had their election material printed at the same address. It had the same layout and used virtually the same words. The candidates appeared on every public platform together. Is it not the case that the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party are in fact one party and that they are therefore entitled to one spokesman in any debate?
Mr. Speaker: I must answer the point of order that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) raised with me. Discussions with the leader of the Liberal party have taken place. I have of course seen the article in The Times today. I have no intention of making any public comment myself either on the article, or on the conduct of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston).

Young People (Employment Opportunities)

  OPPOSITION DAY
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is an Opposition day and the subject for debate has been chosen by the alliance parties.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I beg to move,
  That this House is concerned at the lack of employment opportunities for young people, including those completing the Youth Training Scheme next year; believes that continuing youth unemployment will create dangerous disillusionment; and calls on the Government to undertake an immediate public investment programme to renew Britain's economic infrastructure, and to reverse the cuts in house improvement and repair grant, so as to provide useful employment for thousands of people.
  The irony of a Liberal Member moving the main motion cannot but strike the House, bearing in mind the argument that it has just heard. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome this opportunity to discuss the employment opportunities of young people in Britain. It is an extremely important issue.
  In the past five years, the traditional methods of youth employment and training have virtually collapsed. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was told recently in a parliamentary answer that the number of young people enjoying apprenticeships in manufacturing industry has dropped from 150,000 to 90,000 in the past six years. Hon. Members cannot fail to be struck by the sheer numbers involved if they examine unemployment statistics among the younger generation. For the under-18s, the number of unemployed has increased from 62,000 to 188,000 since 1979. Corresponding figures for the same period for 18 to 19-year-olds show an increase from 66,000 to 355,000. For 20 to 24-year-olds, unemployment rose from 139,000 to 652,000. The grand total of under-25s unemployed is now 1·19 million. That is not far short of the total level of unemployment in 1979. Indeed, making an adjustment for the fact that unemployment figures are now calculated differently, the difference between the number of under-25s currently unemployed and the national figure in 1979 is very small. Total unemployment has increased by about 230 per cent. and in the age groups that I have mentioned, by 450 per cent.
  This year and last are the first years since records have been kept which show that less than 50 per cent. of those who are aged up to 18 and seeking work have found paid work. In 1979, the figure was 75 per cent. I am sure that most hon. Members would recognise that that is bad. The level of long-term unemployment in the under-25 age group is even worse. In 1978, 55,000 under-25-year-olds had been unemployed for a year; today, there are 312,000.
  We are providing the untrained generation. We may even be producing youth who are nearly unemployable in the long term. The social effects are obvious—at least, to almost everyone, although the Government deny their significance. Half the indictable crimes in London are thought to have been committed by those who are under 25. All who have fought elections must realise how
  436
  disaffected large numbers of youth are. Hon. Members cannot help but be struck by the greater pessimism in schools compared with a few years ago.
  Some statistics show that the health of young people has been affected. I despair about the unemployment problem. If Britain is to do its duty and is to have the economy that can achieve the wishes of hon. Members, during the next 20 or 30 years, or even a century, it must do more to improve the ability and skills of its people. This is the most important factor.
  There is no easy way for this country to make a living. Britain must deliver goods and services to people when and where they want them. There is no future in basing the British economy on oil, which, at best, has a short-term effect. Britain does not have the raw materials needed in the long term; it has only the skills of its young people.
  Sir Peter Mills: Although I do not disagree with some of the things that the hon. Gentleman says, will he explain why, especially in my area, despite the many youth training schemes, only 40 young people applied to take part when there were more than 400 vacancies? Is this because of the parents, the children or the Government?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is no job at the end of it.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) mentioned that point, because I gave some time to it. Many people on both sides of the House recognise that the Government's general response has been to introduce a series of schemes, dominated by the youth training scheme, to alleviate the unemployment problem. Unionists, employers and hon. Members regard this scheme as an improvement. I no longer believe that the youth training scheme is a satisfactory Government response to criticism of the level of youth unemployment. Better conditions do not mean that we are on the way to a satisfactory situation. The Government aim to provide 460,000 places in the youth training scheme, but an answer to an oral question on Tuesday revealed that about 250,000 young people have taken advantage of the scheme. If one were an optimist, one would have to describe the response as a disappointment; if one were a realist, one would have to describe it as poor.
  Even more worrying are statistics that unemployment is highest where the take-up of the scheme is lowest. We must face the difficulties that this is creating. Managing agents responded to the Government's advertising schemes and set up these arrangements. Some are threatening to withdraw. Many have told me that they have suffered considerable financial loss. They set up schemes, assuming that young people would come forward. Some found that fewer than half of the anticipated numbers joined the schemes. The managing agents had based their commitments on the difference between the cost of taking on skilled personnel and the cost of taking on young people—about £600 a head. Government compensation for the loss suffered because pledges were not taken up will not be sufficient to save them from serious financial loss. Some have claimed that their schemes are nearly ruined.
  Have the Government seriously underspent in this programme?
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's reference to the management agents. Will he give me some examples?
  Mr. Penhaligon: I could give some names in correspondence, but I do not believe that this is the place to list the schemes, because the management agencies are in serious financial difficulties and are thinking of closing. Many young people are involved. They believe that the schemes are long term, viable and credible. I am prepared to advance information if the Minister wishes.
  Unfortunately, the Minister did not answer my question about whether we had seriously underspent. If we have, I suggest that some of the unspent money could be used to deal with this difficulty. I am told that some colleges of further education are in a similar position—that is a general comment that has been made to me, I cannot provide names.
  The Government concentrated originally on advertising this scheme, and received a marvellous response to their call for work placement sponsorships. They have spent insufficient time explaining the scheme's benefits to young people and their parents. Sadly, many regard this scheme as a second or third-best option for young people who wish to leave school. The talk of cutting the dole if people do not participate in the scheme reinforces the view that this is not a marvellous training opportunity but, in some ways, a second or third-class scheme for those who cannot find something else to do. To be fair to the Minister, I do not believe that that is the Government's attitude, but they must improve the scheme's image.
  We need firm decisions on certification. What does certification mean? What will its value be? I feel for the plight of those who participate in these courses and are not taken on by an employer. They suffer worst. It is clear that many employers see the scheme as an opportunity for an extended interview with young people to whom they wish to offer, subsequently, a full training scheme. In a small community like mine or that of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West, people know when a young person is taken on in one of these courses and subsequently rejected by an employer. Young people need some certification of their achievements or they will regret having participated in the course.
  Concern has been expressed about the monitoring of the schemes. I have some knowledge of the agents who are running them. I suspect there are such agents in other constituencies. I do not doubt that some schemes are well run, but people have little confidence in others. The youth opportunities programme is suffering badly from what I once described in the House as the free boy, free maid, syndrome. People regard it as a last resort. The Government have not applied their mind to selling the scheme. They have certainly not worked physically hard enough to sell it to the youngsters.
  Let us apply our minds to the future. What percentage of those on a youth opportunities programme scheme will immediately find full-time employment at the end of the scheme? I heard the Government mention 70 per cent. The figure is a little optimistic — indeed, some say it is ludicrously optimistic. However, if even 70 per cent. is correct, what opportunities will the remaining 30 per cent. have to continue training if they cannot find a job?
  We believe that Britain is a massively undertrained nation. If the great upturn—to which the Government
  438
  have so often referred during the past three years—ever comes, we know that the old British problem of lack of skill will immediately impinge itself on the market. Just where in the present scenario do the Government see the next generation of skilled workers for the manufacturing industry? Where are the next generation of building operatives—whether carpenters, masons or plasterers?
  I find it amazing that, of the three million unemployed, few have obvious proveable skills to offer prospective employers. I accept that the figure is not zero, but it is a small percentage of the total. The present atmosphere will extend that problem.
  The House is aware of the skill-qualification inflation of the past 15 to 20 years. The Manpower Services Commission report states that in 1985 more than half the jobs in Britain will be white collar rather than blue collar. Yet there is evidence throughout the country that, because of short-term financial considerations, youngsters are leaving school and refusing to accept the educational opportunities available to them. We all accept that there are monetary arguments for turning down full-time education. Youngsters feel that they would do better on the dole or in a training programme. We cannot allow that to continue.
  When the Minister next meets those who run the youth opportunities programme, will he ask them how many youngsters on the programme could have taken advantage of full-time advanced education? The answer will be considerably more than zero. Jobs will require more rather than fewer qualifications as time goes on. A greater skill input will be required. For example, three quarters of accountants in Britain have attended university, whereas the figure was once less than a quarter. I am a chartered engineer and I know that it is no longer possible to enter that profession except from university. That skill-qualification inflation must be reflected in our attitude and in our willingness to spend money on training.
  We must embark upon a two-year traineeship which is a mixture of work, training and education. The mix will vary depending on the skills being acquired. The European Commission's Directorate-General recently called upon all members of the EC to guarantee a two-year training scheme for youngsters. If Benelux, Denmark and France said yes to that, why did our Government say no? Why can our European colleagues offer such skills to their youngsters if we cannot? Britain must follow suit. If the Government will not do that, they owe the House an explanation.
  Traineeship needs to be clearly structured. Recognised skills should be acquired over a period in modular form. We all know that West Germany already does that. Let us have skill examinations to prove competence rather than time served. Let us have a form of certification in craft skills for those building up their skill profile.
  What youngsters need most of all is jobs. We suspect that they do not readily take up YOP sponsorship because there may be no job at the end of their training. I have no wish to extend the debate into a general discussion of Government economic policy, but is worth noting that is real terms the Government's current investment in capital works and infrastructure is 35 per cent. less than it was in 1978–79. We argued during the election, and will continue to argue until the Government are fed up with hearing it, that there must be investment in housing, water, sewerage,

  439
  transport and the environment generally to provide many of the jobs and much of the hope needed by our youngsters.
  Our motion makes specific reference to the recent cuts in housing improvement grants. That is typical of the Government's attitude towards investment. However, to be fair, that has been one of their better areas until now. We are disappointed at the Government's attitude. They are not preparing Britain for the future. They are not investing in infrastructure or industry. Most important of all, they are not investing sufficient energy and attention in the problems of our youngsters. Without them, Britain has no economic future. We hope that the House will accept the motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  5.8 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move, leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  `fully endorses the Government's industrial and economic policies in tackling the root causes of unemployment through the control of inflation and public expenditure, thereby creating the conditions for lasting increases in prosperity and jobs; and, in particular, congratulates the Government 3n the successful launching of the Youth Training Scheme.'.
  I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I listened carefully to his analysis of the current position. He made a statistical statement. In his position as the Liberal spokesman on employment he has both a difficult and an easy task. It is difficult because he has taken on the mantle of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who was and remains a highly respected spokesman on employment matters, and he has an easy task because he has the freedom to daydream without any responsibility. Several of his remarks reminded me of Oliver Twist, "Please sir, I want some more." That is the constant theme of those who stand on the sidelines. The Labour party is at least consistent in its approach, much as I disagree with it. The Liberal-Social Democratic party alliance is not consistent.
  The hon. Gentleman insinuated that the Government did not care about unemployment, especially among youngsters. I suggest to both him and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that, on the contrary, the Government have devoted large sums of taxpayers' money to schemes to help prepare youngsters for work and to promote employment opportunities for them. During the next few minutes I shall demonstrate how we have done that.
  Interesting though the hon. Gentleman's analysis was, lasting employment opportunities, not just for young people, but across the board, depend — the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—on British industry being competitive. [Interruption.] If I misquoted the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. He will appreciate that jobs exist only when a product or a service is provided at a price and of a quality which he and I, and hundreds of thousands of other consumers, wish to purchase. As our amendment says, our economic and industrial policies are creating conditions in which industry can achieve that. The signs of success are there. The hon. Member for Bolsover may not like it, but they are there.
  Mr. Skinner: The Minister goes on about the need for Britain to be competitive to get these young people and other people jobs, but is there not another factor? When public utilities, local authorities and the rest are starved of money to do many of the things mentioned in the debate, that reduces economic demand and therefore puts more people out of work, thus reducing the prospects of those on YTS getting a job when they have finished the 12 months scheme.
  The Government managed to find buckets of money to look after their pet projects, such as the Falklands buying Trident, and defence generally and £17,000 million to finance the dole queue. Last week they were prepared to spend £24 per square yard on a carpet for the House of Commons. The Government have plenty of money to spend if they want to.
  Mr. Morrison: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not be grateful if I pursued that line. A country is in a far better and healthier economic position if it is living within its means rather than the reverse, which is what the Labour party wishes.
  There are signs of success. Inflation is firmly under control, cost competitiveness in manufacturing is up by 15 to 20 per cent. since early 1981, growth in the United Kingdom's gross domestic product is the highest among European Community states, and in the third quarter of this year retail sales were up by 5·5 per cent. while consumer expenditure was up by 3·5 per cent. on a year earlier. I do not wish to sound complacent, because there is still a long way to go. The hon. Member for Truro and, I hope, all hon. Members will appreciate that, with such signs, we are on our way back from the precipice.
  There are also encouraging signs in the labour market. It remains dynamic, contrary to what the hon. Member for Truro was saying. Over 300,000 people leave unemployment every month and about 25,000 people find a job every working day. That is not reported all that often—perhaps the news is too good. The stock of vacancies continues to rise steadily, as it has been doing since mid-1981. Prospects for young people are better and we have evidence that there has been an improvement in job opportunities for school leavers in some areas.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: 'The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my concern, and that of other right hon. and hon. Members, over the cruel effects of the youth training scheme on the employment prospects of disabled young people. I gave the House the facts, chapter and verse, as long ago as 25 July. Can the Minister make a more helpful response than he has so far to what is a real and genuine grievance?
  Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the disabled, as are all hon. Members. I am coming to that point in my speech, and when I do I shall reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  As I said, the prospects for young people are better and at 7 October there were 29 per cent. more unfilled vacancies than at the corresponding date a year earlier. Between May and September of this year the careers service placed 20 per cent. more school leavers under 18 into jobs than during the same period last year. These are good signs, but I do not wish to sound complacent.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: As we are dealing with statistics, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware

  441
  that in my constituency, in south Oxfordshire, out of 1,500 school leavers at the beginning of this month, only 68 did not find either a job or a YTS place and it is confidently expected that all will find places by Christmas? Is that not proof of success?
  Mr. Morrison: I am glad to hear that the scheme is going so well in my hon. Friend's part of the country. It reflects what is happening in many other parts as well.
  The hon. Member for Truro spoke of the youth training scheme. He said that we had an untrained work force, and he referred to the decreasing number of apprenticeships. I accept that point. However, for the first time ever we have a training scheme for all 16-year-old, and many 17-year-old, unemployed school leavers. To suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that we are not interested in training is not proven by the facts available to him. He said that the new scheme was a great improvement on what went before, and I am grateful that he was not grudging in that respect.
  This scheme is an enormous step forward in preparing young people for work. The former right hon. Member for Crosby, the president of the Social Democratic party, Mrs. Shirley Williams, is a great supporter of a scheme such as this, and has been for some time. However, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science she failed to convince her colleagues in the Labour Administration that the scheme was worth while. To suggest that the Liberal party and the SDP have the answers is not borne out by the president of one of the two partners in the alliance.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Do better.
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend was unable to do better.
  This is a massive commitment of taxpayer's money. It will cost about £1 billion, together with enormous resources from employers, trade unions, local authorities and voluntary organisations. It is first and foremost a training scheme, not a temporary measure against youth unemployment. The Government are committed to the long-term future of youth training. The YTS is an investment in trainees on behalf of the nation, so that we can become more competitive. It is the first time that any Government have given a guarantee of an early offer of a place on a high quality training scheme to every 16-year-old school leaver without a job.
  The hon. Member for Truro did not refer to this, but it has been a major task to find, examine and approve the places required this year. However, since the formal announcement of the scheme in the House on 21 June of last year, just 16 months ago, all the places needed this year have been identified, and all but a few have been approved. The hon. Gentleman said that we were planning for 460,000 entrants. That was the maximum number that we saw as likely to need the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on the latest figures that we have—those of 3 November—over 250,000 youngsters have joined, and over 75,000 joined during October, which was greater than the original prediction.
  The scheme is about employability and helping young people to be more effective and efficient workers.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister telling the House that the 250,000 young people in YOP is what the Government expected by this time? If that is so, why did they tell the managing agents that they could set up 460,000 places?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has consistently talked about the youth opportunities programme. That has gone. He may not realise that it is called the youth training scheme. Perhaps his remarks were based on what was, rather than on what is, which is an enormous improvement. If he is referring to the youth training scheme, I can tell him that we expected more than 250,000 youngsters to be on the scheme at this stage. During October 75,000 young people joined the scheme. That was greater than the number we expected.
  As I said, the scheme is about employability, helping young people to be more effective and efficient workers and thus better able to compete in the labour market. If the hon. Gentleman were to come with me to all the schemes that I visit, he would see for himself that the youngsters on the scheme appreciate that fact.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked about the disabled. As he knows, we have made special provision for 18-year-old disabled people, and we are studying the matter to see whether we can raise the eligibility age. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept what I say. That is the present position for the disabled. Within the constraints of the demand-led programme, but with a cash-limited amount of money, we are anxious to do what we can to help disabled youngsters, who must have the same rights as other youngsters to take part in the scheme.
  The hon. Member for Truro did not refer to another scheme which the Government are running to improve the employability of youngsters, and that is the young workers scheme. The signs are that the Government's policy is working and that young people who had been priced out of jobs are pricing themselves into jobs now. Figures from the New Earnings Survey show that average earnings per week for boys under 18 in non-manual occupations, as a proportion of male adult earnings, have declined by about 10 per cent. since 1979. For girls under 18 in non-manual occupations the decline has been marginally more. It is a clear sign that young people are increasingly prepared to be realistic in accepting lower initial wages in order to secure employment.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Minister comment on the recent report from Youth Aid, which shows that, with all the expense of the scheme, only 6 per cent. of the new jobs are really new jobs?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman may have seen some other research that was done by independent academics, Messrs. Lynch and Richardson, which shows that youngsters have been priced out of work by having too high wages. That is a different point of view and one that I tend to believe.
  To back this thesis, the Government introduced the young workers scheme three years ago as a means of getting young people back into jobs by encouraging employers to recruit more young people into permanent full-time jobs at realistic wages which properly reflect their age, inexperience and lack of training. It is a popular scheme. To date, over 250,000 applications for support under the scheme have been approved.

  443
  We have taken other measures too. We have the community programme, which is available for 18 to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for six of the past nine months. Also, we have the enterprise allowance scheme. I am happy to say that a goodly proportion of those who have taken advantage of that scheme are under the age of 25.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to 'cuts' in the housing improvement and repair grants. As he will know, that is part of the motion in the name of his right hon. Friend. I assume that he was talking about the special measures that were originally announced in the 1982 Budget as an encouragement to take up local authority underspending. Those measures were always seen as temporary, and the 90 per cent. grants have been extended once already. We hope that local authorities will continue to give a high priority to the improvement and repair of private sector housing, but for 1984–85, as was the case until the last couple of years, it will be up to them entirely to decide what proportion of the resources available to them to use for that purpose.
  With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to catch your eye again at the end of the debate to respond to many hon. Members who want to raise important points.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I hope that the Minister is aware of the financial problems that many local authorities are now facing—including, I am sure, many Conservative-controlled authorities. They are frightened to death over how they are to find all the money for the applications that they have received. Moreover, they will probably have nil building programmes next year.
  That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Local authorities know quite a lot about what is going on in their own areas and the problems of young people there. It seems to be the policy of the Government to hammer them at every turn. Perhaps the Minister could bring some influence to bear on the Department of the Environment to help local authorities to finance such things as call-in centres for the unemployed 18 to 23-year-olds. We run several of them on the Isle of Wight. It would help enormously if local authorities had a little money—£1,000 or £2,000—to help with equipment and so on, which at present has to come out of the rate support grant. The local authorities are so penalised that they cannot do these things.
  Mr. Morrison: Some of the Left-wing Labour-controlled local authorities, whose rate expenditure is high, are driving out potential employers. This debate is about youth employment, and I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should make the point in the way that he does.
  I conclude with one or two general remarks. Last week, in another place, there was a debate on this subject, which I read very carefully. Lord Byers made certain remarks about the youth training scheme which, compared with the speech of the hon. Member for Truro, seemed far more enthusiastic. It might be sensible in future if the hon. Gentleman's party walked forward on one plank rather than on two. In the same debate, Lord McCarthy made certain remarks which, interestingly enough, suggested that he was not looking for a general reflationary policy. I therefore look forward to the maiden speech at the Dispatch Box of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on this subject, so that I can contrast what he has to say with what was said by his noble Friend.
  444
  I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party have initiated this debate. All of us, in whichever part of the House we sit, feel strongly about the prospects of employment for young people and their training. I look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say, and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the leave of the House, to catch your eye to wind up the debate.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I listened with considerable interest today to the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and to that of the Minister of State. With great respect to them both, although I found the discussion about the training schemes and the like to be exceptionally interesting, I think that they are missing the main point, which was mentioned only at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Truro in two or three sentences. The real problem that we are discussing today is that there are just not enough jobs for young people. That point must be hammered home in all these debates.
  During the past four years — and before — I have listened to numerous people talking about various schemes. We have to get at the core of the problem, which is the whole economic policy of this Government. They have failed to produce the jobs and opportunities for these kids. That is what this debate is about.
  In Scotland—I hesitate to introduce a parochial note — about 24,000 young people are currently without jobs. About the same number again are doing jobs on one of the schemes. There is not much joy in that. About 50,000 or 60,000 young people in Scotland do not have the opportunity of a real job. Although these figures are pretty bad, when one breaks them down one discovers that about one-third of the kids have been unemployed for about six months, another third have been unemployed for about a year, and the remaining third have been unemployed for more than a year. That is a damning indictment of the Government's policy over the past four years.
  I know many such young people. My children are in their early twenties. I know a great many of their young friends, many of whom cannot find jobs. They have good groups of O-grades, they have good groups of highers, and some have good university degrees, yet a great many of them still cannot find jobs commensurate with their qualifications. It is sad that those youngsters who have worked hard to achieve their qualifications are not able to use their skills and talents. A great many of those young people are beginning to wonder whether it was worth their while to study so hard at school and college to achieve those qualifications when they have nothing to show for it at the end of the day. They become frustrated and embittered. I have seen it in my own home. My daughter is in her twenties. She achieved good O-grades, six highers and a degree from Glasgow university. She was unemployed for a year before she got a job washing tables in a local restaurant.
  Young people become even more embittered when they go to be interviewed for jobs and are told that one of the reasons that they are not getting jobs is that they are far too well qualified. It is happening in the Civil Service at the moment. The Minister should tell civil servants to stop saying that to applicants.

  445
  If it is sad for those youngsters who have qualifications, it is absolutely tragic for youngsters in our community who cannot pass examinations. I have a special concern for them because, while the first group that I have mentioned become frustrated, the latter group, who do not have qualifications, just give up altogether. They feel completely deserted by society. I have genuine fears about them. They do not blame this Government or the previous Labour Government. They have no time for a democratic process and parliamentary system that has failed to provide them with opportunities for their energies and talents. I fear that if they do not get some Government support they will do what was done in Brixton and Toxteth and take to the streets. I hope that no hon. Member wishes to see that.
  In the 1970s the Labour Government introduced schemes that we hoped would help some young people. I take some pride in the fact that I helped to introduce the youth opportunities programme and other such schemes. I did not think when I introduced those schemes with my right hon. and hon. Friends that they would be abused by so many firms which have used them over the past few years as a form of job substitution. I know that the Minister is concerned about the operation of the youth training scheme, but he should bear in mind that many youngsters are cynical about schemes. They feel that they are being used for one year and then thrown on to the scrap-heap and forgotten. I say now what I said when I helped introduce the schemes, that, good though the YOP and other schemes may be, they are no substitute for real jobs. That should be in the mind of every Minister in every Administration. A training scheme is no substitute for a real job at this or at any other time.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the YTS is quite different from the YOP and is a quality training? Does he agree that in some respects both youngsters and, indeed, parents would be well-advised to consider the scheme as an investment in the future? I met a youngster the other day who had given up a job paying £55 a week to go on to the scheme with an allowance of £25 a week for the simple reason that he thought that that was the best way ahead.
  Mr. MacKenzie: I accept that the Minister is enthusiastic for the scheme, but I am not so enthusiastic. Young people are cynical about the scheme because it offers training for only a year. That is the lesson that Ministers must learn. Young people become angry when they cannot get a proper apprenticeship or place at college. They become even angrier when they hear supposedly responsible people saying, "Why bother to train them or give them an education"—we have heard this said in Scotland about teacher-training colleges—"when we do not need their skills in the immediate future?" That is a counsel of despair. We may not need their skills now, but one day we certainly shall. We shall find to our cost that, through neglect, we have lost an entire generation, as the hon. Member for Truro said. It is true that young men and women who would be a national asset if only they were properly trained are being neglected.
  Steelworks in my area and shipyards all along the Clyde are closing. Apprenticeships are not being offered in steelworks or shipyards, and it behoves the Government to make every effort to ensure that there is not a further
  446
  rundown in our basic older industries. If they do not make that effort, we will not have a place in the industrialised world of the future.
  When I was Minister of State, Department of Industry, I used to say that if only every small firm in the country would take on one employee there would be a substantial difference in the unemployment figures. I am flattered to think that that is still in Department of Industry briefs for Ministers of State, because they still say it. If the Minister were to go to every industrial, professional and commercial concern and ask them to take on one apprentice or one trainee, a great deal of hope would be given to our young people.
  Although some companies have a good record in this respect, others—I include the nationalised industries—are a disgrace. They have a short-sighted and stupid approach to apprenticeships. The president of the CBI is not often quoted from the Opposition Benches, but I was interested to hear his closing comments to the CBI conference in Glasgow the other day. He said:
  "For unemployment is the worst of it. Be damned with the conventional wisdom that the country will only know high levels of unemployment until the end of the decade. Who stays in the dole queue? Your son? Your daughter? The calm acceptance of more than 3 million people out of work just isn't good enough. Other countries have gone through the recession too and only Belgium has a higher rate of unemployment than we have."
  He also said:
  "Other people, other groups—Government, the schools and universities, the trade unions have their part to play, but at the end of the day the responsibility for what happens rests with us."
  Industrialists should heed that. When we tell them that they are not employing enough apprentices they sometimes reply that apprentices can be a drain on their resources. For example, it is said that an apprentice who attends day release college for one day a week costs the firm more than a real craftsman. That betrays a short-sighted attitude, but in case many employers believe it, Ministers should discuss the matter with employers, because it would be a better use of public money to spend more on real apprenticeships than we are spending on various schemes.
  For the sake of the nation and its young, there must be a more positive attitude and approach towards real training and opportunities for youngsters. If we deny them that right, we shall have lost the talent of an entire generation.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: The plight of the young unemployed is of great concern to us all, but the motion shows a degree of pessimism to which we are becoming accustomed. Its call for investment in the public sector is considered by some to be the major solution to all our problems. In reality, that is an old approach to a modern problem.
  The changes that have occurred in industry in recent years have been dramatic but I fear that, right across the board, in commerce and in the public sector too, we have not been over-clever in our management of change. We have not concentrated on initiating change and then ensuring that it is properly managed and accepted. The private sector has been forced by the recession to introduce many changes, but the public sector still needs to initiate various changes that in many instances it is reluctant to make.
  The Government have introduced some positive economic measures to encourage change, especially

  447
  training and educational schemes, in an effort to prepare people for the changes that must come. After all, people must be prepared not just for change now but for change in the future, and I was disappointed with the pessimism of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and his claim that everything that is being done is not good enough. He must accept that we have started on major schemes to fill the gap between school and work.
  Some schemes that have been available for some time are beginning to show results. The opportunities available under the youth training scheme will enable people to be flexible, for many firms are anxious to employ people who will be able to cope with the changes that are yet to come. We must get away from what happened under the old apprenticeship arrangements. Some apprenticeships were good and others were bad. The same fears have been expressed about youth training—that schemes can vary, like apprenticeships, from the very good to the almost useless—but the new schemes will make people more flexible so that they can move into jobs as they occur.
  Even in certain highly specialised areas, new technology calls for flexibility and many jobs today require a short, sharp course of training to enable people to learn new techniques. In other words, they can be trained quickly, even if they must adhere strictly to the tenets of that training. That is different from the approach we adopted years ago when we required a youngster to sit alongside somebody else and learn the job in the process.
  I appeal to people in industry and commerce not to pay lip service to training. They must ensure that the people concerned recognise the importance of training, and that applies to all levels. It may be company policy to provide training that is excellent, but low-level supervision can result in that training being watered down. It is the responsibility of those actually doing the job to train and encourage the youngsters coming to them to learn.
  There is no need for the sort of despondency expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie). People undergoing training need not think that at the end of the day they will find themselves on the scrap-heap again. We must accept that youngsters on and off schemes will often go into jobs that will last for a time and then finish—temporary jobs—so that they must retrain again. The advantage of the schemes we are now introducing is that people will know that they can learn new skills. Especially will they be able to learn quickly the simpler tasks that must be performed.
  We have gone a long way towards encouraging firms, especially small businesses, to appreciate how important it is for people to learn new skills quickly so that they are flexible. I hope that all industrialists will see the importance of training people for the future. That will provide us with a flexible work force, able to move into new disciplines as they arise, and that applies not only to high technology but to the comparatively lesser skills.
  Many people are reluctant to change jobs, especially as they get older. One frequently hears people between 35 and 40 saying, "I have worked here all ray life. I cannot change at my time of life." I appreciate that there are exceptions, but people can change, and the schemes that we have introduced are designed to show people that change is possible.
  I hope that the trade unions, which in general have not placed any restrants on training, will willingly and enthusiastically accept the schemes as they are introduced into firms. Some people may be despondent about the
  448
  opportunities that exist for youth, but the signs are better. The Institute of Directors, according to a press release, said today that firms were optimistic. That is correct because things are improving.
  I regret the use of the word "disillusionment" in the motion. People in industry and commerce in years gone by were disillusioned, especially by some of the Jobs that they had to undertake. But at least some people taking part in our modern training schemes will have the skill to look constructively in advance at the jobs that they finally settle into.
  Perhaps people were most disillusioned when they woke up to the fact that they could not go on increasing their standard of living without increasing the nation's wealth. The realisation of that came as a nasty shock. Only the Government's economic measures and the encouragement being given to commerce and industry to change will enable us to meet the future with confidence.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: In which of the past eight years has anybody earning less than £150 a week experienced an improvement in his standard of living?
  Mr. Stevens: There are people in different industries in different areas who have improved their standard of living. It depends on the individual company.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I rise to speak in, I hope, a positive spirit. No hon. Member can look at Britain today without recognising the disaster that unemployment has brought to our people, especially our young people. No one would want to crow about our terrible unemployment problem. That said, I must put: the record straight. We heard the Minister selecting statistics that he thought would put the Government in a favourable light. However, the House should consider the record of the four years since the Conservative victory in the 1979 general election as a disaster—it represents a terrible national decline in our economy. Only this Government are responsible for that. We must look at the record over the four years, not the selective statistics for a particularly good quarter or month.
  I remind the House of the question put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister last week. He said that, on the basis of last month's figures which showed a drop of 10,000 in those unemployed, it would take 16 years to return to the level of employment that we enjoyed in May 1979. We must also bear in mind that the gross domestic product for those four years is down 4 per cent.; manufacturing investment is down by a third; industrial production is down 20 per cent.; unemployment has risen by two million; employment in manufacturing—at the heart of the problem that we are discussing today—has fallen by over 20 per cent.; manufacturing exports are down by 10 per cent. and business liquidations have increased by 65 per cent. since 1979. That is the real context in which we must put the problem of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, today.
  We must consider the Government's efforts to come to terms with youth unemployment in this general context before we can debate the subject intelligently. The Government want to have their cake and eat it. We welcome the youth training scheme and the part that the TUC, trade unions, employers and voluntary bodies have

  449
  played in setting it up in co-operation with the Government. We are pleased to see a scheme that is at least an improvement—a step forward—on the youth opportunites programme. However, when Labour Members highlight the problems of that scheme at Question Time we are accused of being disloyal to the young people on the schemes. I must make it clear that that is not the case. The Opposition have the right and the duty to point out the scheme's deficiencies when they arise.
  The YTS was based on the co-operation of employers and trade unions, but if it changes its character it could lose the support of those who set it up. I must warn the Minister that Labour Members' support for the scheme will soon disappear if it becomes compulsory by the back door—by the withdrawal of benefit from those young people who choose not to take up the scheme but who prefer to remain unemployed. Furthermore, the Labour party cannot approve of the way in which the Government have issued a circular which denies basic rights to young people on the scheme that are accepted as normal for young men and women and indeed for children at school. It is wrong, and it is at the heart of the Government's misunderstanding of young people, that a circular should be issued banning leaflets and advertisements for any political activity and banning young men and women on the scheme from political participation. It is at the heart of a young person's education that he should be exposed to political influences. It is an integral part of the healthy development of young men and women that they should be able to make up their own minds between the various political options before them. To bring in a form of censorship by the back door gives serious cause for concern and I hope that the Minister will think again before he pursues the circular.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman completely repudiating the regulations that his right hon. and hon. Friends put forward regarding political activities on the youth opportunies programme?
  Mr. Sheerman: The regulations under the youth opportunities programme were quite different, and the Government's present circular contains emphases that do not reflect the spirit or intention of the regulations under the earlier youth opportunities programme.
  However much better the youth training scheme may be than the scheme that went before—this is the main thrust of my argument—it is still not a coherent policy or the training and education of our young people. It is a stopgap, a substitute, for a genuine education training policy for our young people. The Labour party has a well-developed training policy for the many young men and women who are less advantaged than those who may succeed in the educational world, those who have gained qualifications and moved on to university and other forms of higher education. We are talking today particularly about those young men and women who leave school as soon as possible. They are the forgotten generations of Britain. Generation after generation has been neglected. I make no excuses for successive Governments who have neglected these young men and women.
  However, the Labour party has produced a document entitled "Learning for life" which forms the basis for a effective policy for such people. A comprehensive youth training scheme is the only genuine alternative. Although we shall bide our time, hoping that young men and women
  450
  will benefit from the present scheme, it is still only a stopgap. Our aim must be to achieve a universal, comprehensive and continuing system of education training and employment for the 16 to 19 age group. We want both a comprehensive and well-thought-through policy.
  Listening to the Minister, one sometimes wondered whether people in Britain would understand his attitude. The position that exists is completely unacceptable to our young men and women. Present unemployment cannot be accepted. Whatever the Minister says, youth unemployment is still rising. Between July 1982 and July 1983 youth unemployment rose by 15 per cent. — nearly twice as fast as unemployment overall, which rose by 8 per cent. One and a half million young people are now unemployed. Fifty per cent. of those aged under eighteen are unemployed or on special programmes.
  Among young people, long-term unemployment — unemployment lasting for more than a year—rose by 34 per cent. last year to 375,000; it is now six times what it was when the Tories took over in 1979. We are talking about the loss of a generation. That generation will not come back. We will not be able to go down on our knees and say, "Please come back. We are sorry; we weren't ready for you." We will not be able to say, "We are sorry that there was no education, no training and no jobs." That generation is moving on — jobless, untrained and unskilled.
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: If the Labour party feels so strongly about this, can the hon. Gentleman explain why he and his hon. Friends will not be supporting us in the Lobby tonight instead of abstaining and indeed — as the Opposition Benches show — absenting themselves from the debate?
  Mr. Sheerman: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we have our own plans for a debate on unemployment. We cannot accept the Liberal-SDP motion as it stands — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall explain shortly what is lacking in the motion.
  Earlier in the debate there was reference to the poor take-up of the youth training scheme in one area. The point was also made that in those areas where unemployment was highest, the YTS take-up was lowest. Conservative Members may be naively surprised, but I am not. Those of us who are in touch with the younger generation know that a subculture of youth poverty is developing, and that is the most worrying aspect of our civilisation today. The alienation and hopelessness of young men and women is being expressed not just in the crime rate, but in more significant ways—the inability of those young people to develop stable and lasting relationships, to see themselves as individuals with self-respect or to relate to their families. A sad comment on the horrific murder trial that came to a conclusion last week was the fact that many of the murderer's victims were young men who had left home and had been lost to their families, who did not know where they were. This subculture of youth poverty is producing a large drifting population. That is one of its most horrific results. We would do well to take note of this increasing problem.
  It is ironic that when we discuss these problems outside the House, many people apply a common-sense measure. The Prime Minister often talks about the common sense of household economics. Ordinary people recognise that,

  451
  in this generation, we have had the greatest natural windfall in the history of this country: North sea oil. Only this Government have enjoyed the tremendous benefits of North sea oil revenues. Without North sea oil income the real bankruptcy of the Government's policy would have been apparent. However, North sea oil has been frittered away on the dole queue. It has been used unproductively to keep people unemployed. At the same time, it is argued—this sounds like common sense to me—that a whole generation's talents, abilities and potential for turning our country into a civilised and pleasant place in which to live have been squandered. The real condemnation of the Conservative Government is that they have frittered away our North sea oil heritage and at the same time they have squandered the talents of our young men and women.
  This debate has revealed the Government's complacency about their employment policy. The Government do not understand the gravity of the situation. They do not grasp that there is very little time before the problem will become unmanageable. We must turn our minds tonight to the grave problem that over 1·25 million young men and women under 25 are unemployed and have no future and no prospects. We must search for a permanent solution to that problem.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Roger King: I shall probably be one of the few genuine indentured apprentices to speak in the debate. I spent five or six years as an engineering apprentice with the old British Motor Corporation. At that period of our commercial and industrial life apprenticeships were considered to be one of the most vital forms of our industrial structure. Indeed, in the 1950s, one still paid the company concerned in order to be an apprentice.
  It was not until the later 1950s and the early 1960s that one received anything at all for involving oneself in the hard grind of an engineering apprenticeship. My first wage packet contained no more than about 5½ per cent. of a skilled man's wage packet. Over the past 10 or 15 years the traditional apprenticeship has priced itself out of the market. Not many companies can now afford to take on a full-time apprentice. The wage rates being offered to youngsters on a full-time apprenticeship are far too high to bring in the numbers that we need in industry.
  Generally speaking, I applaud the work that the Government have done over the past four years to improve industrial efficiency. There are no easy answers to the problem of unemployment. What the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has said is all very true. We do not want to see youngsters unemployed, but the hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge the predicament in which the country finds itself as a result of improvements in industrialisation and industrial efficiency. In my constituency, 10,000 car workers can produce twice as many cars as 20,000 produced a few years ago.
  Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said can help to stem the historical tide that leads us to believe that that is to be the normal course of events for our industrial capacity. Gradually, the influence of the robot and technical advances will bring about an enormous sea of change for those who have been employed during the past 20 years or indeed at any time in the history of industrial activity in this country.
  It is against that background that we must consider the training schemes that are introduced to prepare people for
  452
  the jobs and needs of tomorrow. There should be much more of a partnership between education and the commercial sector. I was gratified to read in the report of the Institute of Directors that only about 2 per cent. of those polled wanted any cuts in our education system. However, about 30 per cent. wanted more cuts in the National Health Service. That low percentage figure for education is indicative of the feelings of both management and employers, in that they want this country to have a worthwhile education system which does not end at the age of 15 or 16, but continues throughout life.
  Many of us even will need to be retrained several times in our working lives. Some people will have to be retrained again and again at some stage in their lives. Given the multiplicity of bodies now springing up, it may be necessary to set up some sort of training commission to oversee the training of those who have left full-time education.
  The youth training scheme has met with many criticisms, but it at least gives youngsters an opportunity to gain some experience in the ways of the commercial world. It is said that take-up has often fallen short—including sometimes in my constituency—of the target that was envisaged. Perhaps the financial inducement should be tilted in favour of encouraging people to learn the disciplines of industrial and commercial life. I am not suggesting that unemployment benefit should be stopped, but perhaps a greater financial inducement could be given to those on youth training schemes, while possibly slightly reducing unemployment benefit.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it a very strange paradox—the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—that although the Government say that we are moving into a new technological era and that people should be encouraged to take up further education, the incentive is for them to join youth training schemes rather than to go into further education? If they join a youth training scheme they will receive £25, but they will receive nothing if they go on to a college of further education. Is that not a strange paradox?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that there is another debate and that interventions during short debates prolong speeches and make it more difficult for me to call those hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Mr. King: Earlier, I was talking about a training commission. I believe that we should look closely at those who opt to continue in full-time education. If we are prepared to budget for 460,000 places on the youth training scheme and the take-up falls short of that, there may be some latitude so that we can give some financial inducement to those who want to pursue a course in higher education. I would support that idea.
  There are fewer and fewer unskilled jobs in this country. In the west Midlands, a recent poll carried out by the chamber of commerce showed that 20 per cent. of manufacturing companies in the area were short of skilled workers. That fact should be given due attention.
  When we have looked at all the conventional ways of reducing the number of those on the unemployment register, we should consider the long-term prospects. Many people ask me what should be done about the retirement age. We should consider a long-term policy. For example, we could decide to reduce the retirement age

  453
  from 65 to 60 by the year 2,000, by lowering it every four years by one year. That would be far preferable to reducing the retirement age to 60 at a stroke and thinking that that would be a cure-all for the problems of unemployment. The cost of doing that would be far too high.
  Let us consider the short and medium-term possibilities. I am not very keen about the regional aid programme, on which the Government spend about £1·3 billion a year. A significant proportion of that sum should be transferred to capital works programmes. Railway modernisation and the building of some 2,000 new diesel rail cars—which British Rail claims it needs—would provide far more jobs than can be provided by handing out large sums of Government money to so-called regional aid areas. Massive chemical plants can be put up at the cost of £100 million to employ only 50 people. We have had regional aid for 20 years, and I should have thought that those wanting to move to such areas would have long since done so. I hope that a switch will be made to capital works programmes. No more money is necessarily required. There should merely be a switch and a change of emphasis.
  We are moving into the era of the self-employed man, the one-man business and of the person who can use his skills to decorate a house, to turn his hand to plumbing and to a thousand and one other small self-employed jobs. Greater encouragement should be given to that, by giving youngsters on the youth training scheme a good range of skills which will be of practical use in future years.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and I agreed with many of his points, particularly in the latter part of his speech.
  Hon. Members generally agree that unemployment is one of the two or three key problems of the age. Unless we solve that problem successfully, the stability and perhaps very nature of society will be threatened. I think that there is common agreement on that. Youth unemployment at once gives rise to most emotion and to the most concern in the long term. That is only right. It also causes anger, as has been shown in one or two interventions today. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, we are in danger of creating not just one lost generation but a whole succession of them.
  The problem should therefore be studied in that context. We must consider Britain's general economic situation. Whatever we may do, if there is nothing at the end of our training schemes and initiatives, they can be of no value. Therefore, it is correct to mention, as we do in our motion, the need to stimulate the economy and to provide jobs. It is only right to blame this Government for the high- level of unemployment and the weak economy. I remind the House that, of the top six OECD countries, Britain has the highest rate of unemployment.
  However, it is wrong to do what the Labour party did at the last election and pretend that with a wave of the wand we can solve the problem tomorrow. That is not so, and it is untrue, and probably impossible. We must consider the real problems of unemployment. I should like all hon. Members to recognise that the problem is both long term and structural. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Northfield that, whatever Government are in
  454
  power, the impact of our declining position in world trade and of the automative revolution means that our society will probably have an endemic and structural high level of unemployment. I wish that politicians of all parties would stop telling people at general elections the old lie that if they give them their votes, they will give them back their jobs tomorrow. We cannot do that, and that should be recognised — [Interruption]. I should say that the Conservative party was the most guilty of using that old lie in the 1979 general election. The Conservatives produced an appalling poster entitled "Labour isn't working". The clear inference was that voting Tory meant that the unemployed would get their jobs back. We must try to break out of the pattern where the party in office tries to find better ways of hiding the unemployment problem while those out of office try to find more exquisite methods of complaining about unemployment. We must address ourselves to changing the structure of our society and introducing the long-term initiative necessary to cope with the problems of unemployment. I am not referring to short-term palliatives.
  I was interested to hear the Minister say that the Government regard the youth training scheme as a long-term programme. I wish that everything that took place under the scheme carried such a commitment. I believe that the scheme is regarded by many young people, and others, as a means by which the Government can get off a political hook, rather than as a serious attempt to tackle the problem of youth unemployment.
  We tend to regard youth unemployment as a problem produced by the statistics of the Department of Employment. Hon. Members must be cautioned about that. We seem to think that youth unemployment ends at 18, because that is all that the Department of Employment discusses. The reality is that a hidden mountain of youth over 18 and under 25 are unemployed. About 30 per cent. of adult unemployed in Somerset are under 25. I regard those as young people, but they do not appear in the Government's figures or, with some exceptions, in most of the Government's main training schemes.
  The Minister referred to the community programme and I recognise that it has a part to play, albeit small, in dealing with youth unemployment.
  I was astonished to hear the Minister claim, with some self-satisfaction, that the youth training scheme was a success. The take-up figure on the scheme is little more than 50 per cent. of the planned total.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: The hon. Gentleman must put his figure into context. The take-up rate is at present way above 50 per cent. of where we planned to be at this stage—460,000 entrants throughout the year.
  Mr. Ashdown: The Minister's reply seems to imply that he would be happy if other people joined the scheme at a later stage. A constant complaint from county councils and management agencies is the problem of tying in late joiners. It is difficult to believe that the Minister has a long-term plan which will reach anything approaching the proposed target at the end of the scheme if in reality it is difficult to become a late entrant in the scheme.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) asked why so few young people had joined the scheme. The lack of entrants is one of the scheme's fundamental problems. The reality is that so few young people are joining the scheme because, whatever the

  455
  Minister or the Government say, young people do not regard it as a bridge from school to work but rather—and with some justification—as a stepping stone from school to the misery of the adult dole queue.
  The lack of quality of places on the scheme is its chief fault. The Government have made no attempt to ensure that the supervisors in the Manpower Services Commission can ensure that the quality of training is at the required standards. The supervising bodies of the scheme are hopelessly and inadequately equipped to deal with the task. Not only do young people perceive this problem; parents perceive it too. Many parents in my constituency say to me, "We do not believe the scheme is working; that is why we do not support it". Despite the £25 per week incentive in the scheme, many young people perceive it to be so valueless that they prefer to continue in some form of further education.
  The scheme also offers little to achievers. Many of our young people who are achievers will not join the scheme because they recognise that it has little to offer. A lack of presentation and communication exist between the Manpower Services Commission and those who wish to join the scheme. That is not surprising because the scheme was rushed in. It has suffered from inadequacy of preparation, of presentation and especially of training for those who run the scheme. I gain the same impression wherever I go. I have occasionally heard some Conservative Members say that the problem is somehow caused by the young people themselves. I believe that the YTS structure produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems to be creating a group of young people as feckless as the Tories allege them to be.
  Not only are the young who partake in the scheme dissatisfied. The MSC has created dissatisfaction among the managing agents. There has been a lack of consultation by the Manpower Services Commission. With the change from district manpower boards to the area manpower boards the educational representatives were reduced from two to one on the MSC boards. The YTS was then viewed by many of the managing agencies in the county councils as another instrument for attacking local government. The inefficiency of the MSC — I worked with that body before my election to the House—has created problems for managing agents.
  There is inadequate provision for the rural areas. I have written to the Minister several times about this. The Minister's reply to my letter stated that the Government were considering what could be done to assist the operation of the YTS in the rural areas. I shall be interested to hear whether he refers to that matter when he winds up.
  Those who run the scheme suffer from lack of permanency. Many of those who work for local authorities and run the scheme are subject to temporary contracts of employment which inevitably produces instability. Whatever the Minister thinks to the contrary, some county councils in the south-west of England, where the majority of county councils support the Conservative party, are nevertheless seriously considering whether to continue as managing agents under the scheme. That shows how they regard the scheme.
  Some of the industries which have been encouraged and even pressured to take up a large element of the placements under the scheme are now in difficulties because the number of trainees working for them is significantly below the figure for which they budgeted. Some manufacturing firms are suffering severe cash flow problems. Is the
  456
  Minister prepared to use funds to bail out some of those firms which, in good faith and good spirit, sought to carry the scheme forward but who now find themselves in financial difficulties?
  Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does the Minister agree that a problem has occurred in those local authorities where trade unions — especially NALGO—have decided to black the youth training scheme? Would it not be useful if some guidance were given to young people in areas where the trade unions have blocked the YTS scheme from proceeding and where youngsters are therefore consigned to on the dole?
  Mr. Ashdown: I am happy to support my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will take that up.
  We must also consider what happens to young people who are not and never will be employed. In this context the youth service has a major role. I hope that the Minister will press his colleagues to come clean very soon about the action to be taken on the Thompson report. We were told a year ago that the matter was under consideration and that there would shortly be an announcement. A similar answer was given on 1 November. The Government must now come clean about this as the role of the youth service in relation to young people who will never be employed is crucial to society in the future.
  There is a desperate need for a special advocacy for young people. One of the most significant recommendations in the Thompson report was that there should be a Minister for youth. That is vital for the future. That special advocacy is crucial to co-ordinate activities in this area for the future.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am sure that many hon. Members share my distress that only 3 per cent. of our number could be present for this very important debate. I hope that there will be a better attendance the next time we discuss these matters.
  I have studied the motion with some care, but I do not feel that it does a service to our young people. It does not meet the challenge of youth employment and I find it impossible to support the motion as it stands. I am, however, able to support the Government amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am able with enthusiasm to support the Government amendment.
  I am sure that we all share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for the concept of training. There was nothing controversial in that aspect of his speech. He did not, however, do justice to the question of how we can create new jobs. That is the central issue before us.
  A senior member of the Labour party said some months ago:
  "Young people want us to be honest with them—they have had far too much deception from politicians. We must not promise the youth of this country anything we cannot deliver. We will fight for but we cannot guarantee everyone a job and you know in your hearts you cannot and you should not say so."
  We could all learn from that. When the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) refers to the "proper" policies of the Labour party now I hope that he is not including, as I suspect that he is, the very policies that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) argued against on that occasion at the Labour

  457
  party conference. If that kind of package were introduced — legislation to guarantee everyone a job, training at trade union rates, free travel to and from training, and so on—the spending spree entailed would be a recipe for disaster and would do nothing for youth employment. Nothing would be more likely to create the "dangerous disillusionment" referred to in the motion.
  The key to the problem lies, first, in increased prosperity—that is why I am able enthusiastically to support the Government amendment—and, secondly, in improved training and education. We must welcome the success so far of the ambitious youth training scheme on which the Government are spending £1,000 million.
  I have seen for myself the success of the scheme in Norwich. I have visited a number of institutions and factories in which the scheme is operating successfully. In many cases, people learning skills on the scheme have been offered jobs as a result. Therefore, no one can convince me that the scheme is not helping young people to find work. In Norwich they are doing just that as a result of the scheme.
  On Monday, the Eastern Daily Press stated:
  "More than 3,000 young Norfolk people have joined the Government's new Youth Training Scheme"
  Manpower Services Commission officials in the area said that
  "dozens of young people in the county were joining the scheme every day."
  They further stated:
  "We undertook to offer a YTS place by Christmas to every one of this year's 16-year-old school leavers without a job … We are confident that we will meet this guarantee in good time."
  One aspect of the scheme is less satisfactory. In Norfolk, and perhaps in other parts of the country, there is not sufficient take-up by employers to encourage eligible employees to take part in the scheme. I intend to discover the reasons for that. The life skills aspect should also be examined more carefully. There are serious criticisms of that aspect, but time does not permit me to go into detail now.
  The Government must do more to improve the quality of scientific and technical training. That is bound to improve employment opportunities for young people. It is highly unsatisfactory that only half of our young people have systematic vocational training of any kind when the comparable figure in Germany is 90 per cent. and in France 80 per cent. We must examine this aspect much more carefully and find ways to increase the training element in preparation for employment. I welcome moves to increase science and technology courses in our universities and other areas of higher education even if it means a decline in some of the less rigorous disciplines which often leave graduates high and dry with qualifications unsuited to the jobs on offer.
  Finally, we must resist the temptation to exploit the difficulties of young people for party political ends. I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that we must all avoid that. We must seriously continue the debate that we have started today. We must consider how to increase wealth as that will provide jobs, how to increase opportunities for young people and how to improve training even more than the Government have done so far, although there is no doubt that what the Conservatives
  458
  have done is the envy of all Opposition Members, many of whom must wish that they could have done the same. I therefore support the Government amendment.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said on 7 September:
  "The Youth Training Scheme is a permanent advance on the road to economic recovery and not a temporary substitute for the dole queue".
  On 19 October the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), on a visit to the Bristol area, said of the youth training scheme:
  "It is providing durable training quality and it is providing the kind of hope which was fast running out for successive years of school leavers."
  Earlier in the debate the Minister was asked what percentage of young people leaving training schemes actually found employment. I received a written reply today from the Department of Employment showing that 38 per cent. of young people leaving training schemes this year found employment. Last year and the year before, the figure was 39 per cent. In 1979 it was 54 per cent. For a Government spokesman to describe the initiative on training as giving hope to young people is the cruellest joke that could be perpetrated on 16 and 17-year-olds.
  The Government hold out the carrot that if a young person goes through a year on the training scheme somehow the golden horizons will open, with all the wonderful things advertised on the box between 6 pm and 8 pm—overseas holidays, fast cars, luxury furniture. They suggest that those are the things to aim for and that training and skills are the way to achieve them. At the end of the scheme, to say to two out of three trainees, "Sorry, the game's up. You are back on the dole, where your older brother and sister were before you," is elastoplast politics. It is putting sticking plaster over a social abscess and claiming that there is a veneer of training to help young people.
  The Government have brought forward such initiatives during the past three or four years for three reasons. First, they have sought deliberately to massage the dole figures and, according to the Department of Employment, to take over a third of a million people off the dole figures. Secondly, they have sought to cheapen the rates of pay for youth labour. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the former Secretary of State for Employment, said that boys and girls were too expensive to employ and that they must price themselves into jobs. Perhaps that is why the Government refuse to increase the training allowance. Will the Minister tell the House at what stage he would consider increasing the pitiful £25 allowance on the YTS to a level at which young people can live?
  Even before the youth training scheme, and its forerunner the youth opportunities programme, cheapened labour, the rates of pay, negotiated over decades by unions in different industries for apprentices of comparable ages with YTS trainees, were by no means perfect. British Telecom technicians earned £61 a week, British Airport apprentices £57, ICI apprentices £54, apprentices in the chemical industry £52, apprentices in British Rail workshops £50—there will not be many apprentices left in that industry, after the savage spending cuts at Shildon

  459
  and Horwich—apprentices in the gas industry received £49, in the water industry £48, in engineering £45, and in electricity £44.
  Those are not huge sums, nor massive amounts of money. Most hon. Members earn more in a day at their ordinary rate of pay. The managing director of the British Oxygen Company, Richard Giordano, earns £11,000 a week for selling fresh air. How then can Tory Members tell British youngsters that they are pricing themselves out of work?
  Attempts to cheapen youth labour are made for economic and political reasons. The present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made the following remark. which he has chosen not to repeat in the past 18 months. He said that he had a vision of factories in which trainees could produce goods at such a high rate of production that imports from the far east, for example from Singapore, would be unnecessary. Those countries rely on a lack of trade unions and on cheap labour to produce goods cheaply. The right hon. Member saw the day when British youngsters could compete with those in the far east on equal terms. The Government are planning to drive down the wages of young people and to end the apprenticeship system in Britain.
  ICI has taken on trainees under the scheme at Wilton on Teesside. There used to be 50 proper apprentices working under the terms of a negotiated national apprentice agreement. This autumn the company introduced a pilot scheme, and instead of employing 50 apprentices it will employ 192 school leavers as trainees. Obviously, at the end of the first year the company will choose 50 of the 192 trainees to go on to a second year's apprenticeship. The first year's apprenticeship was previously paid for by ICI, but is now being paid for by the taxpayers. Three quarters of these youngsters will have to go back on the dole.
  Trainees in ICI used to get £54 a week. Now the company will offer only £40 a week. The scheme does nothing to solve unemployment, because the same number of apprentices are taken on in the second year as would have been taken on under the old apprenticeship system. The 142 young people working for ICI, having been given the illusion that they were competing for a job, and having gained skills in ICI, will go back on to the dole queue.
  The number of apprentices is falling. In engineering they decreased from 29,000 in 1967, to 14,000 in 1981 and to 10,300 in 1982. Last year, in Coventry there were 238 apprenticeships in engineering. Ten years ago that city was known as the richest working-class city in Britain, the prosperity of which was built on the skills of the workers in manufacturing and engineering.
  One of the reasons why the YTS will destroy the traditional apprenticeship system over the next two years is the additionality concept. A firm that used to have two apprentices will take on three YTS trainees and claim all five as YTS trainees and gain £1,950 from all five. The apprenticeship system will disappear as the Manpower Services Commission withdraws its sponsorship from apprentices.
  We have heard little about the conditions under which youngsters have to work in the schemes. The House is aware that Opposition Members have exerted pressure in recent weeks and exposed the dangerous conditions in which many youngsters are working under the YTS. Under the YOP and YTS, 19 youngsters have been killed. There was an accident rate of 250 per month. Many of those
  460
  accidents were in places where the supervision was inadequate and where the factory inspectors had not investigated the machines and conditions in which the youngsters were working.
  We have had a belated response from the Government. In July of this year, after pressure from employment appeal tribunal rulings, they came along with regulations to bring trainees within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1968. We heard this week that they intend to do the same on health and safety. That is a half step forward, of which the House is not unmindful. However, bringing the youngsters under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which they should have been under five years ago, will not get away from the fact that unless the Health and Safety and Factory Inspectorates inspect every workplace where youngsters work, the tragedies of Sheffield, Strathclyde and south Wales will be repeated.
  The Government are turning the clock back in their approach to youth and employment opportunities for young people. Hon. Members have said that the economy is the bedrock for discussion on training and employment. One fifth of manufacturing industry has been destroyed under the Government, compared with 11 per cent. in what we are told was the greatest crash in the economy between 1929 and 1931.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said that the solution was to look towards a future of one-man businesses. Has he not seen the figures? In the past year 1,000 businesses a month have gone bankrupt because of the crisis in the economy, which is exacerbated by the Government's measures. There has been a 36 per cent. fall in investment. We invest less in industry now than we did a quarter of a century ago. That is not because of a lack of money. About £32 million leaves the country every day for South Africa, Brazil, Korea and Argentina, where trade unions are illegal and the same slave labour wages are paid as many Conservative Members would like our youth to receive.
  In reality, there are 5 million people on the dole They are offered no future and no employment prospects. Perhaps this fear has not been voiced in today's speeches, but it has been written about in the serious journals of capitalism and in articles by the representatives of that strand of society in the Chamber. There will be social explosions in the 1980s as unemployment continues to rise.
  About 6 million people live in damp houses arid 9·7 million people do not get even one week's holiday away from home. Such social conditions will produce explosions that will dwarf what happened in the 1930s and the events of 1981 in Brixton, Toxteth and Moss Side. That is why the Government have taken the children off the streets and off the dole and put them into schemes which will not offer employment at the end of the day. In Coventry there are more under-25s who have been unemployed for more than a year than the percentage for the west midlands or Britain as a whole. A third of the under-25s in Coventry have been on the dole for over a year. Could Government Members come to Coventry and explain to those who are on the dole queue, as I was for three years before coming to the House, that their prospects of getting jobs are laughable if they have been on the dole for more than a year because factories are closing down week after week and month after month?

  461
  What are the young people being trained for? Why should the Government create the best trained dole queue in Europe? Why do they not bring forward genuine measures to create jobs? The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) spoke disparagingly about Labour party policy, adopted at its conference this year, of a guaranteed job for every school leaver. That is the aim of the Labour party and it is the only realistic thing for which to ask young workers to campaign.
  I welcome the moves by trade unions in recent months to organise the YTS trainees into the trade union movement, to try to stop the worst aspects of exploitation and to aim for trade union rates of pay for the apprenticeships, which the schemes attempt to replace. In some factories in Coventry and elsewhere the trade unions are achieving success.
  It was said earlier in the debate that the only way forward was to stimulate the economy. There are three ways in which money can be found to stimulate the economy. It may come from the employers, it may come from the workers or it may be printed by the Treasury. The British economy can sell only 70 to 80 per cent. of what it is capable of producing. Therefore, money will not come from there to stimulate investment in new manufacturing industry. It may be available to buy British Telecom or British Airways, or to fund a few more share speculations, but it will not be available for large-scale new investment. If it is taken from the workers, where will they, with their lower living standards, get the money to buy what industry produces? If more money is printed we will end up with inflation such as the Tory Government produced in the early 1970s.
  Under capitalism, which the Government Benches represent, youngsters cannot be offered jobs. The Government cannot guarantee that 5 million people will find permanent work. That task remains for the trade union and Labour movement, which will create a planned economy with shorter hours and a lower retirement age. We should not have to wait until the year 2000 for a lower retirement age. My grandfathers did not live long enough to enjoy their retirement, because of the industries in which they worked. A target of a retirement age of 55 would create hundreds of thousands of jobs; so would a 35-hour week in industry. If industry enjoyed similar holidays to those for Members of Parliament, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created. I do not expect such benefits to be given easily by the Government. It is up to this generation of young workers to join the Labour party and the trade union movement and take them from the Government.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has given a splendid example of what has been wrong with this country for so long—a failure to understand the needs of others, and intolerance. The hon. Gentleman knew that this was a short debate and that quite a number of Members have been present throughout and wish to speak. Yet he rambled on for 15 minutes and told us very little.
  We need few lessons about trade unions from hon. Members like him. Many of us have been active in and have held high office in trade unions. For the hon. Gentleman's information, when I started my training,
  462
  having left school at the early age of 14, I was earning in real money terms less than the youngsters are earning today at £25 per week. Much has changed since I left school when there were plenty of jobs for young people because they had not priced themselves out of the job market. That alone, of course, is not the reason they are out of the job market, and I would not for a minute suggest that that is so. It is one element. Another is the lack of demand caused by the world recession; also, for many decades we have been ill-equipped to face the challenges of the real world.
  Those challenges must be turned into an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies which have existed for many decades in the way we prepare young people to cope with the real world of tomorrow. As someone who has spent almost all of his adult life in the training of the young, I take seriously what we should be doing for them. The changes that are being introduced in the school curriculum, particularly in Scotland, are a first and most important step along this road. These changes are long overdue to prepare young people for the real world, not the world of the academics but the world where jobs are and where wealth can be created.
  The youth training scheme, a most imaginative scheme that has come in for so much unnecessary criticism, should provide the basis on which we can build to restructure all training. In particular it should provide the basis for all apprentice and skill training, with training allowances being paid as in West Germany. It has worked there since Bismarck. Why can we not learn from others and do what they have done? That is one of the reasons why there are fewer under-25s out of work in West Germany than in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The United Kingdom is about the middle of the European unemployed under-25s league.
  I should like to see more investment, both in schools and in training programmes, in the tactile skills, the human relation skills and the communications skills because these are all vital and important for the world of tomorrow. To do this the scheme would need to be extended from one year to a minimum of three years, with the second and third years concentrating on particular rather than on general areas of training. If we are seriously considering doing something constructive for the young, as I believe we all are, and if at the same time we want to see United Kingdom industry becoming much more competitive, investment in a three-year scheme would be more rewarding than the massive grants or tax allowances which we give to all sections of industry.
  It is no good Opposition Members wringing their hands about the high level of unemployment. Labour policies have contributed massively to the United Kingdom's problems. I remind Opposition Members what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said in Eastbourne on 30 June 1978:
  "Inflation is the main enemy because inflation is the mother and father of unemployment."
  Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is no longer on the Labour Front Bench and we can see a change in emphasis today in the way in which the Labour party approaches these problems. The Labour party has contributed to the problems by believing in the myth that Governments can create jobs and that Governments alone can keep jobs in being.
  Customers create jobs. Anyone who has managed an enterprise knows that and that if customers are lost, jobs

  463
  disappear. That is why the solution to the problem of unemployment, especially youth unemployment, lies in keeping inflation down. We should also encourage training and stop bailing out poor management and propping up out-of-date work practices. The current ghastly recession has given us an opportunity to right the ills that have troubled us for so long. Many Governments have attempted to solve those problems but this is the first to do anything constructive about training the young.
  Those of us who have been involved in training from the early days when a Conservative Government introduced training boards realise what a massive investment for the benefit of young people these training schemes represent. I remind the House that there is no simple answer. Those who present simple answers have simple minds.
  7 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: This has been a useful and interesting debate which has captured the interest of those hon. Members who have been here. I am sure that it will also prove interesting to people outside. Right hon. and hon. Members who sit behind the Liberal and Social Democratic Benches have been notably absent during the debate and they will be notably absent from the Division Lobbies later.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in some of his criticisms of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), but I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East on having been here for the entire debate. He advanced his views of the plight faced by many young people forcefully. He also argued strongly about the defects in many of the schemes that the Government provide for young people. He made a valuable speech. It is a pity that similar views were not expressed by more of his hon. Friends. I strongly regret the fact that so few Labour Members spoke, even though they usually indulge in rhetoric.
  I shall deal with three topics. The first concerns overall responsibility for education and training, the second concerns the new training scheme and the third, which refers to the latter part of the motion, is concerned with an investment programme which the alliance parties suggest is necessary if we are to give young people hope for the future.
  It is becoming increasingly obvious through the development of the youth training scheme and other Manpower Services Commission activities, which have been extended by the present and previous Government, that we have a dual track system of training. The Department of Education and Science and local authorities have some responsibility but so, too, do the Department of Employment and, occasionally, others.
  The alliance believes that the time is overdue for education and training to become the responsibility of one Department so that duplication and lack of co-ordination can be overcome. In the past few months a technical and vocational scheme has been launched. It appears to be excellent and I am sure that the hon. Member for Tayside, North, would welcome it. It will make educational courses much more relevant to the vocation that young people follow after leaving school. It is not a Department of Employment initiative, however. Putting micro-computers in all secondary schools is another excellent scheme but that has been the initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore yet another Department
  464
  has become involved in a vital part of youth training. There is an overwhelming case for providing one Department that has responsibility for education and training.
  I shall now deal with the youth training scheme. I should like to clear up any illusions that the Minister might have with regard to a speech which was made in another place by a Liberal peer. The Liberals and Social Democrats welcome the scheme as a good first step in the right direction. However, it is only a first step. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Tayside, North say something with which the alliance strongly agrees—it should become a two-year or three-year scheme. We understand that it is new and do not blame the Government for its teething troubles, but we hope that it will go further. It is vital that we get closer to the German model and that of many of our other competitors. There, training is an accepted part of life. It is not possible in only one year to train people to the level we want for the industries that we hope to have.
  We should move towards a modular system. The youth training scheme can be criticised for not dovetailing adequately with other apprenticeship and training schemes. Moreover, we believe that the youth training scheme should not be confined to young people. Older people of perhaps 30 or 40 should be able to take the same module. Working life will become more changeable and people will have to change jobs. It will not be only young people who will want the training provided by YTS.
  The alliance would also like to improve monitoring of the quality or standards of the scheme. It should be possible to have it recognised by employers and education authorities as a certifiable scheme which is accepted as providing a minimum recognisable standard of training. I hope that the Minister will comment on those suggestions and that the Government will recognise YTS as a first building block on which they will build. We should have a much more comprehensive system.
  My final point concerns an investment programme. We need to train young people so that they have skills with which they can obtain jobs, but they also need to be given some hope that they will be given an opportunity to use their skills. There is no doubt that one reason why more young people are not joining YTS is that they are disillusioned and despair of obtaining employment at the end of their training. If hon. Members consider that 51 per cent. of young people who attend youth opportunities programme courses cannot find jobs after that training, they will not be surprised by the attitude that I have described. It is vital to overcome the problem of unemployment if we are to provide the boost that training schemes need.
  The alliance said clearly during the general election campaign that we do not intend to start printing confetti money and throwing it all over the place. It is not possible for Governments to provide jobs just like that. Such a belief will not help. However, although the Government cannot provide jobs they can play a vital role in proving the framework and conditions in which industry can thrive and find new markets for its products or services. The Government do not seem to accept that.
  In recent months, we have been suggesting measures to the electorate and the Government along the lines expressed last week by the Confederation of British Industry to the Government. We want not an inflationary package of confetti money, but a steady reflation led by

  465
  investment in infrastructure and in capital projects that are labour intensive but have a low import content. This will provide the wealth and opportunities to make the econmy grow again. We are not suggesting a magic wand that will rid us of 3 million unemployed in one or two years; it will take much longer to take people off the unemployment register. It will be a long time before fewer than 1 million people are on the register.
  We must also examine job sharing, work attitudes and the means to provide people with opportunities — for example, sabbatical years and leisure activities—so that they enjoy future work patterns.
  Hon. Members referred to the defects in the Government's schemes that they have seen in their constituencies. Many youth organisations have made representations that the Governent should listen carefully to young people when deciding how to develop and improve the schemes. The people who understand best how the employment schemes are working are those who take part in them. The National Association of Youth Clubs and similar organisations are involved in the schemes, and in some cases are responsible, with the Manpower Services Commission, for running them.
  This has been a useful debate. I hope that it is the first of many debates on motions from the Social Democratic party. This is the first debate on employment since the recess and it has led to agreement across the Chamber. I hope that future debates will provide further opportunities to boost the Government's schemes for the benefit of young people.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that this has been a worthwhile and interesting debate. I assure all hon. Members that we always listen to constructive ideas to improve the youth training scheme. The hon. Gentleman said that we should have a combined education and training department. I assure him that we have close co-operation—as he would hope—but I shall not accede to his request at this stage.
  I appreciate the welcome given by the hon. Gentleman to the youth training scheme. I thought that he was a little fuller in his praise than the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), though I should not like to differentiate between the two. The hon. Member for Stockton, South asked that the scheme should continue for two years. I believe that there should be a period of consolidation to examine how the scheme settles down, because by any stretch of the imagination this is a large launch.
  There is agreement across the parties that it is important that the scheme should dovetail in with apprenticeships. We should not stop there; we should co-ordinate the scheme with the adult training strategy. That is the Government's approach to the whole area of training, not just the younger end. I agree with the hon. Members for Stockton, South and for Truro and other hon. Members about monitoring. The scheme will succeed according to its quality. It is important that monitoring is properly conducted.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie)—I understand his point—said that this was a debate about jobs. He cited steelworks and shipbuilding industries in his constituency. He talked also about
  466
  apprenticeships. This is a debate about future jobs and training. Traditional apprenticeships have served a useful purpose. A better aim is a combined objective across all industries to achieve high standards, rather than time serving. There is a move towards that objective throughout industry.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) gave the youth training scheme a large measure of support. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North referred to it as a most imaginative scheme, and I believe that it is. We should pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that has been done in launching the scheme by trade unionists, employers, voluntary organisations and the officials of the Manpower Services Commission, who have made a magnificent effort in making a large number of places available in their areas.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box sought to make the scheme more political than I should like. I believe that the scheme is not about politics and that it will suffer if it is tarred with a political brush. As I pointed out in my intervention during his speech, there were political guidelines on the youth opportunities programme. It was appropriate that the Manpower Services Commission should set out agreed political guidelines.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we did not have a coherent policy. I do not agree with him. As I said to the hon. Member for Stockton, South, the policy is coherent in the way in which it is linked with apprenticeships and the adult training strategy. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a scheme for all minimum age school leavers. That is what the scheme is about. With respect, the hon. Gentleman did not make many constructive suggestions. I am prepared to listen to constuctive suggestions, because I wish to improve the scheme wherever I can.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) cited accident statistics which related to the youth opportunities programme, not the youth training scheme. I hope that he will accept that point. We have said consistently that this is a training scheme and not a work experience scheme. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a rhetoric of hate towards the youth training scheme. Why does he not tell the 2,000 or more youngsters on the scheme in Coventry, and their parents, that he would like to close the scheme? I am sure that he would have an unpleasant hearing.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that I am determined that health and safety conditions for those on the scheme are as good as possible. He tried to tell the House that there were no health and safety provisions. The hon. Gentleman knows that trainees have been protected under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for the way in which he welcomed the scheme. I was interested to hear what he said about apprentices having priced themselves out of the market. I am sure that, because of his experience, the House will want to dwell on that issue.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) identified a problem when he talked about the analysis of the difficulties faced by school leavers and the younger generation, but he failed to put forward a constructive suggestion about how we could proceed. I am interested

  467
  in comments, but I want them to be constructive in some respect. The debate has been a little long on analysis and a little short on constructive solution.
  The Opposition parties continually find ways for us to spend more money. If we spent more money, quite simply the public sector borrowing requirement would rise, interest rates would rise and money would come out of the system rather than go into it. Contrary to what Opposition Members have said, the younger generation are far more discerning about their future careers than hon. Members imagine. They understand only too well that the youth training scheme is about giving basic training in the industries of the future—not those of the past. That is why more than 250,000 have joined the scheme voluntarily during the past three months. They have voted the scheme a success. They know full well what the Government have done and will be doing for them.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 184.

  Division No. 64]

  [7.20 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Madden, Max

  Anderson, Donald

  Marek, Dr John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Carl Me, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Nellist, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Penhaligon, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Pike, Peter

  Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Prescott, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Freud, Clement

  Robertson, George

  Golding, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Haynes, Frank

  Sheerman, Barry

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Soley, Clive

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Stott, Roger

  Johnston, Russell

  Tinn, James

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wainwright, R.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Wallace, James

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Wareing, Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Winnick, David

  Loyden, Edward

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McNamara, Kevin

  Mr. Alan Beith and Mr. John Caitwright.

  McWilliam, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Amess, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brinton, Tim

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Baldry, Anthony

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Butcher, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  468

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Coombs, Simon

  Moate, Roger

  Cope, John

  Moore, John

  Couchman, James

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Dicks, T.

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Murphy, Christopher

  Dover, Denshore

  Neale, Gerrard

  Dunn, Robert

  Needham, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Neubert, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Newton, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Eyre, Reginald

  Normanton, Tom

  Fallon, Michael

  Norris, Steven

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Onslow, Cranley

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Forman, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Fox, Marcus

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Franks, Cecil

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Freeman, Roger

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Galley, Roy

  Powley, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Raff an, Keith

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Ground, Patrick

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Harris, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Heddle, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Hirst, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Holt, Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Howard, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Sims, Roger

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Speed, Keith

  Jackson, Robert

  Speller, Tony

  Jessel, Toby

  Spencer, D.

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Key, Robert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Stern, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Lilley, Peter

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Luce, Richard

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Tracey, Richard

  MacGregor, John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Maclean, David John.

  Viggers, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Waddington, David

  Major, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Walden, George

  Malone, Gerald

  Waller, Gary

  Maples, John

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Marlow, Antony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mates, Michael

  Watson, John

  Mather, Carol

  Watts, John

  Maude, Francis

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Wheeler, John

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mellor, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Merchant, Piers

  Wolfson, Mark

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Woodcock, Michael

  469

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Donald Thompson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  `That this House fully endorses the Government's industrial and economic policies in tackling the root causes of unemployment through the control of inflation and public expenditure, thereby creating the conditions for lasting increases in prosperity and jobs; and, in particular, congratulates the Government on the successful launching of the Youth Training Scheme.'

Personal Social Services
7.32 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government's disregard for, and lack of understanding of, community care; rejects current policies which seriously damage the capacity of social services departments to enable more of the elderly, disabled and chronically sick to live at home rather in institutions; and calls for action to assist local communities to take more responsibility for those in need, help for voluntary bodies to develop alternative ways of coping with increasing social needs, and an end to curbs on local authorities' ability to provide essential services.
The motion is deeply critical of the Government. However, before I move to that criticism I have a personal point for the Minister for Health. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke earlier this week at the dinner that I and many other hon. Members attended, which was given by the negotiating committee of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. He revealed then that he was in poor health and suffering from 'flu. I hope that his condition has improved and I say that not just out of the Christian benevolence that always eminates from the alliance Bench, particularly to Conservative Ministers, but also because if the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is less constructive or not as positive as we would hope, an ill wind will blow from this Bench.
The purpose of this debate, like the one that preceded it, is to be constructive. Ours is the constructive approach. Ours will not be—here I am looking at the empty green Benches elsewhere on the Opposition side of the House —the rather mediocre line of defence that the Labour party presents. However, I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is here. I congratulate him on his appointment to the Front Bench and look forward to his contribution.
Our main enemy is the Government and we speak on behalf of the many people who are suffering from an insufferable Government's policies on community care. The Government said in their consultative document "Care in the Community" of 1981:
"more social services provision is needed, both to keep up with the rising numbers of very elderly people and to provide for those being cared for in hospitals who might be better cared for in the community. Reducing long-stay hospital accommodation without expanding alternative provision is not the answer."
How right the Government were. They seemed for once to be talking sense, yet their actions since then, and particularly since the election on 9 June, have proved that they are contradicting the logic of their own argument.
Having provided finance to local authorities through joint funding, the Government are seeking to impose rate capping on many local authorities, and that can only lead to a decline in the support that local authorities can give to voluntary organisations. Having realised that what they said in 1981 in the consultative paper did not match what they were doing, the Government began to change tack. This was exemplified by a letter written on 13 September 1983, which the Secretary of State sent to Councillor David Blunkett, chairman of the social services committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. In it, the Secretary of State said:
"the effect of the joint finance as it arises in other schemes will inevitably bear more heavily on those authorities who are subject to holdback of grant. I am not convinced that this is necessarily an argument for modifying the calculation of expenditure targets or for exemption of particular items of expenditure from them.

471
The need remains for all local authorities to restrain their expenditure … local authorities must review the totality of their expenditure and adjust their priorities in the light of all circumstances."
That shows the hollow frame of mind with which the Government approached this problem. Having said in 1981 that
"Reducing long-stay hospital accommodation without exanding alternative provision is not the answer"
they then told local authorities in September this year that the authorities would have to review their commitments in terms of the overall problems that they raced. We know only too well that the greatest single problem for local authorities is the Ministers. This is placing local authorities in an impossible position. It is from that basis in particular that we should direct our attack on the Government.
Any fool will realise that if local authorities are faced with expenditure cutbacks and with great problems over joint funding, the first of their activities that they will maintain are those for which they have a statutory obligation. In other words, the voluntary organisations will suffer first. The great paradox in which the country has been placed—in region after region—as a result of the Government's measures is that as local authorities have cut their spending on voluntary organisations, so local social and economic pressure on people has increased. As a result, the problems have increased and the voluntary services have been all the more stretched. In other words, a double blow is being dealt to the provision of voluntary and community care and that double blow stems from the Government's policy.
Since the return of the House after the summer recess, the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have said much about how fond they are of the American Administration. The twisted logic of the economic policy that they have pursued on this issue over the past two years reflects what the previous American Vice-President once called Mr. Reagan's "voodoo economics". I hope that the Government will take note that there is little hope for voluntary services and community care as long as they continue with these policies.
Personal social services are an important problem. Frankly, the Government have yet adequately to defend—although I am sure that the Minister will try to do so tonight — the publication of July 1983 on health and personal social services expenditure. It shows that local authority personal social services spending in 1982–83, set alongside 1983–84, rises from £2,753 million to £2,973 million, and that the figures for the personal social services total measures are £2,852 million to £2,973 million for the same period. Perhaps that is one reason why the Government say that they are spending more.
Indeed, the Government are spending more in cash terms, but what are they spending in real terms? If one feeds those figures through the standard Treasury statistical technique—a Government technique, I hasten to add — the GDP deflator, one finds that current spending has declined by 3·1 per cent. and that the total personal social services expenditure has declined by 1·3 per cent. In other words, in real terms, there is a decline. With an expanding elderly population and demographic changes, increasing burdens are to be placed on local authorities. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on this subject. The matter was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in his speech in the National Health Service
472
debate, and on that occasion it was not adequately answered. So we look forward to an explanation from the Government.
The result, therefore, is a disastrous fall in standards. Of course, the elderly will be among the worst hit. The demographic changes have been well documented, and there is little need for me to repeat them. Age Concern England and many other groups as well as the Government themselves have pointed to the areas of concern. It is clear that in 10 years there will be 4 million people over the age of 75. Twenty years will have seen a growth of 60 per cent. in that age group. People over 75, compared with people between the ages of 16 and 65, are 26 times as much a financial burden on the personal social services. In human terms, it means that housebound, bedfast people will increase by 74,000, those who are unable to bath without physical assistance will increase by 200,000, those who are unable to leave their own homes unassisted will go up by 60,000, and over 250,000 will be living alone.
As a result, there will be an enormous increase in community care. What do we see? We are faced with a decline in Government support for the mechanisms, the local authorities and the provisions that are supposed to provide that community care. That is, surely, deeply distressing. It is little wonder that my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I am sure all hon. Members, hear constant complaints from constituents asking for advice and help in their suffering. I have quoted several statistics tonight, but we must not forget that behind each statistic are human values, human dignity and the right of people to enjoy a better standard of living. I am sure that the Government share our concern, but frankly their actions do not meet their rhetoric, and it is high time that their rhetoric matched the reality.
The Government's approach to local government is increasingly centralist. Investments that are taking place, or have taken place, in voluntary organisations are being put at risk as a result of programmes that the Government are implementing. Surely, voluntary organisations play a crucial role in the provision of community services. I pay tribute to the Government for their increased financial support to voluntary organisations—of that there is no doubt, and we compliment the Government on it—but I repeat—it is the central issue of the motion—that the rate limitation proposals that many district and local authorities fear, or are experiencing, mean that the Government are giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other. That is a hopeless situation in which to conduct business and to seek to improve the quality of services and facilities.
The basic unit of structure in community care is, clearly, the family. The Government have rightly said that they want to increase the role of the family. Since the beginning of time the success of the family has depended on love, compassion, tolerance and mutual respect and understanding. Frankly, the Government's attitude is far removed from any of those ideals. Victorian values—except, perhaps, for the best-off—never displayed those ideals to any great extent towards the people who were suffering. Those suffering people are already under intense pressure, and I hope that tonight the Minister will tell us about some positive action that the Government intend to take to relieve the pressure.
If community care is to be backed up by efficient, effective and fair personal social services, it needs communication and a consensus in society. That is the

473
basis on which the system operates. Communication between central and local Government is appalling. Edicts are sent out and local authorities are expected to comply with them. If they do not do so, they are heavily penalised.
The ideal of consensus comes not only from the Liberal Benches. Hon. Members may have seen the interview with the former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, who made it clear that in British politics consensus is not an ugly word. The Prime Minister used to call herself one of the conviction politicians, although I notice that she no longer does so. The consensus that any Government should create is not being created by this Government. That consensus is not the hallmark of this Government or of this Prime Minister. Nevertheless, there is a grass roots feeling of social concern in the country. It was illustrated in the excellent series in the early autumn — the LWT "Breadline Britain" series. People are worried about poverty, social hardship and the right to access to social justice, the right to enjoy community care and to benefit from personal social services. What we have had so far from the Government is as inept as it is inadequate.
We in the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance offer this debate tonight in a constructive fashion of opposition. We look forward to hearing the Conservative contributions, and perhaps to more than one contribution from the Labour Benches. In particular, we look forward to the words of the Minister, especially if he can defend or explain the financial implications of community care that we have raised on two occasions in the House. The Government must realise that they are the Government of the nation, not just of the diminished number of people who sent them back to office. To do that, the Government should display a greater social consciousness and social concern. They can do that through the reality of their policies and through the rhetoric of their politicians. At the moment both are deficient. It is in that constructive sense that we have tabled the motion, and we look forward to hearing the Government's defence of their policies from the Minister.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.49 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`recognising the constraints imposed by the needs of the national economy, applauds the Government's initiative in promoting new policies for personal social services as set out in "Care in the Community" including new measures to ensure that more of the elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped are enabled to be cared for at or near their own homes rather than in institutions; welcomes the Government's action in improving and extending the Joint Finance Scheme, improving co-operation between statutory services and voluntary groups and increasing financial support for the voluntary sector; and looks forward to a continuing steady improvement in the level and quality of support available to those in need in the community.'.
I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on the manner in which he delivered his speech. Although it was not a maiden speech it must be the first time he has introduced a motion for a half-day debate. He did so with considerable
474
eloquence, fluency and, for most of the time, factual accuracy. The hon. Gentleman succeeded before he had even started in drawing a larger number of Liberal and Social Democrat Members into the Chamber than I can ever recall seeing before. I am sure that it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault but he seemed to drive away all Labour Members bar three before he even started. He gave his colleagues an opportunity to hear, for the first time in some cases, the SDP policy on personal social services, which the party was unable to debate at this year's conference. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is to reply, is a well-known critic of the alliance with the Social Democrats, he will no doubt put a different gloss on alliance policies. Conservative Members will listen with interest to get an inkling of the differences that still divide them.
Perhaps it followed from the hon. Gentleman's remarks on consensus politics, but as I listened to his speech, I found that the Government were being pursued for policy objectives on which there is not a great difference between us. The objectives that the hon. Gentleman put forward on behalf of his party were a pale shadow of the Government's objectives. Worthwhile objectives for looking after those in need in society are ones which Governments of any complexion try to pursue. There are some areas in which I think the Government are clearer on how to achieve those ends, but we are very much on the same wavelength on objectives.
We accept that the demand for personal social services and support in the community for those in need will grow in the next few years. The number of elderly people in our society will rise. I accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. We also have a changing pattern of care for the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the chronically sick, and we look forward to supporting more of them in the community than in institutions. The rising demand is caused by demography and the changing pattern of care.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this means that the statutory bodies—the local authorities and the health authorities — must respond to those rising demands. They must also take the lead in society and bring out of society itself all the voluntary efforts of friends, relatives, neighbours and those who have joined organised voluntary groups and are prepared to play their part in supporting those in need in our midst. There is an area of growing need to which we must respond. We must also respond to the changing pattern of demand in different ways. We must ensure not only that the statutory services play their part but that we give a lead to the whole community in drawing on the good will of the many individuals who want to help.
In this area the Government have produced new ideas, new money and well-directed initiatives to improve the pattern of social care as well as support for the more familiar forms of social care, which are obviously well worth supporting. Apart from our particular support for the narrow policy area, we have introduced a policy which we apply to every part of public sector activity. We are concerned with the effectiveness of what we do and the quality of the work being done. We are concerned with raising the standards of professional practice and the social work carried out. We think that efficiency, cost-effectiveness and elimination of waste are ways of maximising the worthwile end product for the client, the patient or whoever it may be.

475
I should first like to give the House the background on finance and money. Our critics in all parties are obsessed with the money and the statistics of the amount spent in every area of activity. We must put the hon. Gentleman's criticisms and the others that will follow into perspective by considering what has happened to local authority personal social services expenditure during the Government's period of office. The amount spent by local authorities on social services has doubled in cash terms. In 1978–79 the figure was £1,062 million; in 1983–84 the budget is for £2,159 million. The conventions that are usually used to try to work out how much growth in services this represents after allowing for the pay and price increases experienced by local authorities show a growth in services of about 12·5 per cent. over the five-year period. The increase in spending during this time, applying the measures that are usually used when cost is being calculated — how the cash compares with movements in the retail price index during the same period — has been 19–9 per cent. compared with the retail price index. Measuring these things in cash, money or amount spent is not good enough but that is the basis of the criticism offered. The criticisms about our cutting the service to the bone must be set in the context of an increase in spending of about 20 per cent. compared with the RPI.
Mr. Donald Anderson: If the Minister compares those two sets of figures with the rising tide of demand, he will be driven reluctantly to the conclusion that it represents a standstill.
Mr. Clarke: I do not think that that can be supported. We will hear during the debate the various estimates of what the rising tide of demand amounts to. Demographic change alone probably accounts for about 1 per cent. a year. With 12 per cent. over five years we are ahead of demographic demand. Therefore in cash terms alone, resources are being expended by local authority social services departments which allow for real growth and the development of services.
I accept that the pattern of spending and activity in each local authority varies. The figures I have given are national. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will set those figures against the background of the Government's general policy on local government spending and our urging on local government a restraint in spending of the type we have had to exercise during a period of economic recession. How do the best local authorities achieve the expansion and development of their services against the background of our policies, which the hon. Gentleman suggested would damage local authorities shortly if they have not done so already? We have asked local authorities to make sound judgments on the priorities within their budgets between services and within services. Of course we have asked them to protect services for the vulnerable. We have asked them to develop services for the priority groups.
That is consistent with the Government's policy towards local authority spending in that it must accompany the elimination of wasteful and unnecessary expenditure in which many local authorities indulge. That means that even within the social services departments themselves there is scope for improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness. That must be so in an area which consumes £2 billion each year and employs more than 200,000 people. Throughout all local authority activities, cutting
476
out the wasteful and the unnecessary is a way of producing money that enables us to pursue priorities in social services, education and so on. That is the Government's policy and it is consistent with care and concern for the underprivileged who depend on local government services.
Mr. Kennedy: Even accepting hypothetically the Minister's premise, and if wastage, unnecessary expenditure and bureaucracy were eliminated. is he seriously suggesting that the savings generated in local authorities by that exercise would be enough under the Government's rate capping proposals to replace, maintain and continue to extend in pace with demographic changes, particularly with regard to the elderly, the joint financing programmes which they have supported in the past? Is the Minister suggesting that it can be balanced?
Mr. Clarke: Our policy is just that. We are putting forward policies for restraint of Government spending in all areas of local government activity —the best local authorities can show that it is possible—and saying that it is possible by pursuing the right policies and doing things efficiently and effectively to carry on providing worth- while services in this area. I will not bore the House with examples of the frivolous expenditure in which many councils still indulge in some of their activities, and then get into penalty, such as rate capping.
The Government do not impose penalties on individual aspects of local government expenditure. Councils get into penalty on the totality of their expenditure, and those that incur the misfortune of finding their rates capped are those that have got into penalty on the totality of their expenditure.
Councils which then say to their ratepayers, "Because we are in penalty we must halve our home help service or close down this or that popular day centre for the disabled," or whatever it may be—I have no specific examples in mind; one must look at each case on its merits —are playing politics. That is my first reaction, because a council that is spending so much as to be achieving penalties is making a meal of it if it parades a local popular service to the public and says that Government penalties mean that it must be cut out.
Mr. Stephen Ross rose——
Mr. Clarke: I shall be in danger of cutting some Liberals and Social Democrats out of the debate if I keep giving way.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I invite the Minister to come to the Isle of Wight — [Interruption.] at my expense, tomorrow, next week or at any time—to go through the very matters about which he has been talking. The problem that local authorities have is how on earth they can stay within the limit without going into penalty. It means cutting home helps and shutting village schools. They are some of the terrible choices that have to be made, and I beg the Minister to come to my constituency one clay to sort out some of those matters.
Mr. Clarke: Spoken like the Liberal leader of a county council. I will take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation gladly if a suitable opportunity presents itself. Many councils throughout the country are not incurring penalties and do not find that they must take such dramatic action vis-a-vis their social services.

477
That is the position on money, but it is not just a question of money. It is the Government's case that one cannot measure activity in this or in any other area just by arguing about the statistics of what is actually spent, particularly in an area like the personal social services. Those really interested in the subject must look not only at the cost of what we do but the value of what we do for those groups most in need. Local and central Government must, and do, share a common interest in improving the effectiveness of the service — getting better value for money, making it more cost-effective, introducing more good practice and spreading the best of professional practice as methods change throughout the country.
That is an area at which we have been looking, following the Barclay report on the work of social workers. We have been looking at ways of co-operating with local government and helping to spread good practice, keeping up standards and improving the effectiveness of what is done. I have been discussing our proposals with the local authority associations, and much remains to be done. We have it in mind to set up a social services inspectorate of the kind suggested in the Barclay report.
Our proposal is that it should be based on the existing DHSS social work service, which has an excellent reputation in the field for its professional standards, and that, in addition to those people, we should second good leading social workers from local authority work, probably some lay people with suitable professional and other skills that they could bring to the work from outside.
It would be a new inspectorate that would carry out most of the statutory inspections for the Secretary of State, as of now — indeed, the local authorities urged us to carry out more statutory inspections—and we hope to agree with the local authority associations a wider range of inspections, some covering one authority, and others covering several authorities, in agreed areas of concern. Those inspections would provide a number of functions.
I emphasised that we are working up the idea in the course of helpful discussions with the local authority associations. We hope to produce a body that will carry out inspections, so doing work of a kind that I see as a sort of cross between the HMIs in education, the probation inspectorate perhaps, and, above all, the health advisory service, the work of which is of considerable use to health authorities in the National Health Service. We must have a body that is satisfactory to everybody and is designed particularly for the social services sphere.
It would retain the present functions in the social work service, commenting on the standards of service and quality of care, but also providing advice, information and assessments aimed in the first instance at the local authority itself. I trust that it would help the members of local authorities, particularly the social services committees, in their task, which is to evaluate their service, keep up standards there and help formulate policy in the light of outside advice.
I have time to give only that one example, but it is one way in which the Government are trying to involve themselves in a way that will be of assistance to all those in social work activities. We hope to make sure not only that we wrangle about how much money we spend, or how much grant the Government provide and whether it is right that authorities may get into penalty—I have given the
478
figures showing by how much expenditure has expanded during the years we have been in office—but that we also look at the value we are getting for the money that is going in. The new inspectorate will be one way in which the Government can help local authorities raise that value.
Mr. Anderson: Will the new inspectorate, with the new civil servants who will be employed, be empowered to point out deficiencies in the quality of provision in individual local authorities, and might that lead to greater expenditure in those cases to catch up with the average or better local authorities?
Mr. Clarke: We shall not be employing new civil servants. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will guard against the tendency to believe that new ideas must create the employment of more publicly employed people to run them. We have about 100 social workers in the social work service already and we are not looking to add greatly to that number.
I also urge the hon. Gentleman not to take a negative view about the new policy. I understand his wariness. Naturally, we shall ask those concerned to point out deficiencies in services where they find them, pointing them out in a way that is helpful to the local authority, ourselves and the public, in whatever public documents emerge, so that whatever is appropriate to remedy that deficiency can be identified and, we hope, put right.
I have explained one of the ways in which we are concerned with the quality of care, and I come now to the view of the Government on the subject matter, the content of policies particularly in the areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. His party's motion has some cheek in lecturing us on the need to provide for the care of the elderly, chronically sick and others at or near their own homes rather than in hospital, because that is very much the policy of the Government. The document that he cited as a model to be aimed at was the Government's "Care in the Community" document published in 1981, and we have an excellent record.
We inherited the system of joint finance. As an example of Government support of community care, it is health authority money expended for community care and it is in support of our general objectives. It is a good system and we have built on it. In the year before we took office, 1978–79, the joint finance allocation was £34·5 million. In the current year the allocation is £94·1 million, an increase of 180 per cent. in cash terms and 50 per cent. in real terms. Total NHS expenditure on joint finance schemes up to last March amounted to over £300 million, a significant sum by any standards.
The take-up remains high. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said what is repeatedly said by those in local government—that in the end, when the taper is operated, the burden falls on local government and is a discouragement to them. But it has always been in the rules of the scheme that eventually the burden will fall on local government so as to release the joint finance pool for new developments.
As I said, the take-up of joint finance remains high. The £300 million to which I referred is about 95 per cent. of the total to be allocated, and the indications are that the whole of the joint finance allocation for this financial year will be taken up, so some authorities are being deterred more than others. As the hon. Gentleman said, those being deterred the most are those that run the risk of penalty. The

479
Government say to those authorities in reply, "Do something about your total expenditure. Get rid of the nonsense you are spending money on now and you will not be in such risk of incurring penalties, and then you will be able to take advantage of the joint finance to the same extent as others who are taking it up."
The "Care in the Community" initiative took matters beyond joint finance. It was designed expressly to deal with the problem of, for example, long-stay patients who needed to be moved out of hospital so as to have more suitable support in or near their own homes. We have just launched that scheme. Part of it depends on an extension of the joint finance arrangements so that joint finance can now be used for up to 10 years at 100 per cent. of support costs and up to 13 years in all in the "Care in the Community" circumstances.
After that time the health authority can use its own money for an unlimited period to support the cost of community care for those who would otherwise be unwilling long-stay patients in hospital. To help promote the intitiative the Government are setting up a programme of pilot projects. We have set aside £15 million of joint finance for central support. We have already had 50 outline applications and I hope that that programme will go well.
We have tried to involve the voluntary sector as well as the statutory sector to provide community care for people who might otherwise be hospital patients. We are encouraging health and local authorities to co-operate more closely with each other and to draw the voluntary organisations into joint planning concerns. We have given voluntary organisations a place on the joint consultative committees of health and local authorities.
Mr. Michael Meacher: The Minister slides rather too glibly over joint funding, as he does on so many matters. He suggests that local authorities were aware of the effect of tapering arrangements on revenue expenditure. That is true, but they had no inkling that the Government would impose rate capping on them. That has now happened and has combined with the effect of the tapering arrangements. If the Minister will not disregard this expenditure for the purpose of calculating targets, will he at least consider doing so for the purpose of calculating liability for grant holdback?
Mr. Clarke: We have had such representations ever since the scheme started, and we are continuing to look at them. It is highly unlikely that, after the end of the tapering period, finance should be disregarded. Once such exceptions are made, the basis upon which it is necessary to control Government expenditure is destroyed. It is surprising that local authorities insist that the threat of targets makes them turn to some community care projects at an early stage when they are looking for savings.
Let me illustrate the new ideas that the Government have introduced alongside the greatly increased expenditure that is taking place. We keep announcing special initiatives which are Government financed and normally intended to pump prime in important areas. Announcements have been made about services for mental illness in old age. That initiative was launched when the health advisory report "Rising Tide" was published earlier this year. Over the next three years £6 million will be made available for that and I am glad to say that the regional health authorities have now nominated the districts where
480
new comprehensive services for the elderly and mentally ill are being launched. I hope that all those districts which devised schemes to bid for money will not waste the work but will go ahead and, having identified problems in the area, will try to develop services.
We have attached high priority to taking mentally handicapped children out of hospital. We launched our initiative at the end of 1980 and since that time authorities have been encouraged to review the needs of all children in their care. We are pleased that so far we have been able to provide central funds to help launch 19 local schemes for transferring children from long-stay hospitals to community care. We hope to be able to support similar schemes in the near future. We have had 70 applications for funds under that scheme which shows that authorities throughout Britain share our concern that young mentally handicapped children should not have long-stay care in hospital but should be in smaller units.
I remind the House of our initiative on young offenders. We are making sure that vulnerable young people in trouble with the course who can benefit from non-costodial treatment are given some positive help outside borstal and detention centres. We have a new community -based package financed with £15 million spread over the next five years to build up a new system of so-called intermediate treatment. That is a phrase we all hate but no one has thought of a better name. We hope that that intermediate treatment will command the confidence of magistrates and the public and provide a more constructive way to deal with young offenders.
We are also making progress in implementing the Children Act 1975, which should be popular in this debate as the leader of the Social Democratic party was responsible for its enactment. Until now it has not been possible to put all its provisions into effect. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security takes the lead on this matter and he is steadily bringing the provisions of the Children Act into effect and also making other improvements in child care and access to children.
Mr. Kennedy: I am glad that the Minister mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Will the Minister be considering the wide issue of custodianship as part of those developments?
Mr. Clarke: Certainly, and perhaps I shall be able to help the hon. Gentleman on that.
We have made considerable strides. On the adoption side we have introduced three important measures —arrangements for approval by the Secretary of State of voluntary adoption societies; the ending of private adoption arrangements and the introduction of adoption allowance schemes. In April 1984 we shall bring in provisions which will enable courts to declare a child free for adoption and several smaller improvements to adoption procedures. We shall then have gone a considerable way towards completing implementation of the Act's adoption provisions.
A major part of the 1975 Act is custodianship—sections 33 to 46—on which the hon. Gentleman has just prompted me. The difficulty of finding extra resources for the courts has stood in the way of earlier implementation under successive Governments. However, I am glad to say that with the agreement of my noble

481
Friend the Lord Chancellor—it is his budget that has to provide the resources — we shall be introducing custodianship provisions by the end of next year. That will mean new opportunities for security and stability for children for whom adoption would not be the right solution, including many children in long-term care.
On the care side, our priority has been the full implementation of section 64 so that parents can obtain legal aid in care proceedings in all cases where the court has asked that they should be separately represented. At the same time courts will be able to appoint guardians ad litem. We are bringing in that part of section 58 of the original Act which is now section 7 of the Child Care Act 1980 which will enable courts to make the child party to proceedings and to appoint guardians ad litem for children. At present the child has no status in the proceedings before the court.
All those reforms will come into force in April 1984 and we shall be able at last to see the proceedings operate as the 1975 Act intended. We have recently completed a consultation exercise on the setting up of panels of guardians ad litem. The 1975 Act provides new functions for guardians ad litem in care proceedings and parental rights proceedings. They will also have a role in the new access legislation which is still to be introduced.
The consultations generated a widepread and helpful debate on the role and functions of guardians. There is plainly a divergence of views and it has become clear that we need more time to be sure that we have those right.
The procedural guidance contained in the court rules which were drawn up in 1976 is clearly not adequate for the new part that guardians must play in the various proceedings. We have therefore decided to consult more widely than usual on the content of the rules. One effect of this further period of consultation will be that the courts will not be able to appoint guardians if we keep to January for the new access proceedings, as we had intended. However, we have concluded that the new provisions in section 12(a) to (g) of the Child Care Act 1980, as amended, are so important that we should not delay their implementation, which will for the first time give parents the right to challenge decisions by local authorities to deny all further access to a child in care. At the same time, it is essential that the child's interests should be safeguarded.
Although courts will not be able to appoint a guardian, they will be able to make a child party to the proceedings. He will then be entitled to be legally aided and legally represented. This package has enabled my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to keep us to the January date, and a commencement order will be laid in due course. From April, guardians will be available, as intended by the legislation, in access as in other proceedings.
These legislative reforms do not represent all that we have tried to do to improve services for children. We have recently completed the consultation exercise on the new code of practice on access to children in care, and guidance on procedures for the assumption of parental rights. We were very encouraged by the response to the consultation, and we hope that the documents will do much to encourage the good practice that is an essential complement to enlightened legislation.
There is no room for complacency. Concern is constantly expressed in the House about the problems of children in care, and about many aspects of the legislation.
482
That is why we are pleased that the Social Services Select Committee last year began an inquiry into children in care. The general election prevented the Committee from issuing a report, but it may be that the newly appointed Committee will be deciding whether to issue a report. If the Committee decides to do so, the Government will welcome that decision. In the meantime, we know that our reforms do not go as far as some hon. Members and some groups outside the House would have wished. However, I believe that we can show — this illustrates the Government's concern in this field — that we have achieved through these measures a material and significant contribution to the welfare and rights of children separated from their parents, and of those children's families.
The smooth working of the developments that I have announced will depend greatly on the ability of the local authorities to absorb them into the working of their child care services. In particular, the local authorities will have a new function of setting up and managing the panel of guardians from next April. We are grateful to the local authorities for the way in which they have participated so far in the formulation of these policies and adapted themselves to the needs of these new policies. I am sure that they will continue to build on this evolving legislative framework to develop their own services.
That concludes my lengthy statement on our position on child care. I have also briefly covered a number of other aspects of social services provision. I hope that I have shown that, lying behind our argument about the figures there is an extremely good record on financial provision. We will continue to listen to arguments about cuts, but at times it becomes pretty daft to tell us that we are cutting financial provision to an area of service where such rapid increases in expenditure can be shown by many social services departments. Apart from the arguments about money, the Government have ideas and concern. They have developed and improved the services for the many who are needy in the community and who need the services. That will continue to be our approach to these matters. I therefore commend to the House the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends.
8.23 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I start with the simple proposition that a society's attitude to the mentally and physically sick, the aged and the young, and the financial sacrifices that a society is prepared to make for those unproductive people, is one of the key indicators of the degree of civilisation of that society. Judged against that standard, Britain has become a less civilised society over the years of Conservative government. The theme has been cuts in public expenditure and the reduction of taxation. The effect has been increasing misery among those in need and the expansion of a two-tier society, illustrated graphically by the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to the Prime Minister earlier this week. He asked her why, if the National Health Service was safe in her hands, the right hon. Lady was not prepared to feel safe in the hands of the National Health Service.
How different it would be if, instead of the constant theme of public expenditure cuts and reducing taxation, the Government's theme was a crusade to mobilise society to help the needy in our midst. The cuts—or efficiency savings, as they are now euphemistically termed—harm that section of society which is least likely to benefit from

483
cuts in taxation. The Government are totally out of touch with public opinion if they assume that their priorities in this area reflect those of the country as a whole. In both the National Health Service and the personal social services, there are forces for inescapable growth of expenditure. However, the budgets—even on the figures outlined by the Minister—show that there is a standstill, and effectively mean a reduction in standards.
The House held a debate on the National Health Service on 27 October. This debate is its counterpart. The way in which we criticised in that debate the effects of NHS cuts —on bone marrow transplants, on kidney patients and ward closures—have been more than confirmed by the statement yesterday from the president of the Royal College of Nursing. She said that the public
"must face the prospect of a continuously deteriorating health service unless the Government rethinks its manpower and cash cuts policy for the National Health Service."
Despite the Minister's excellent advocacy, that is the reaction of someone in the front line in the real world.
Of course there is an interaction between the NHS and the personal social services. The financial pressures fall on both. That interaction is clearly shown by the continuum of housing for the elderly, through sheltered and residential home to hospitals. The director of social services in west Glamorgan, for example, would certainly dispute the average figure that the Minister gave for the percentage increase needed annually to remain at a standstill. He states that in our county we need at least a 2·5 per cent. increase in expenditure on the elderly if we are to maintain standards.
Thus, there is pressure at each end of the housing continuum as a result of Government tits. Obviously, housing as a whole has suffered the greatest proportion of Government cuts during the past five years. Equally, as a result of cuts in social service budgets, the building of residential homes for the aged has been postponed. In my local authority the average age at which a person is admitted to a residential home for the elderly has risen to 80. Obviously, those homes are becoming quasi-geriatric hostels. As people at that more advanced age are more frail, there is a corresponding effect on staff ratios and on the need for more paramedical assistance.
The Minister's reply has been that local authorities must look at their own housekeeping and that they are profligate. However, I invite him to consider the record of my local authority, west Glamorgan, and to see where he thinks those cuts should be made. Cuts also have implications for those local authorities that sponsor beds in voluntary homes. There has been an increase in the number of private homes for the elderly, which has been encouraged in turn by the increased board and lodging allowances of the DHSS. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that, as it means that the elderly have more choice. however, as residents become more confused, voluntary homes frequently do not want to know, and pass the problem on to the statutory authorities that have an obligation to provide.
The Government's response to the increasing demographic pressures in our society includes continued progress in community care. I welcome the Government's initiatives in that respect, and the important announcement concerning legal representation for children that the Minister outlined. Those changes are admirable. For example, my local authority is one of those pioneers developing community programmes for foster care. That
484
has led to a decrease in the number of children in residential care. It is cost effective, and releases resources for expenditure on the elderly. Similarly, my county has developed community care for the elderly, with intensive home care, which is encouraged by the Government. It has employed 66 extra people in the process as robots cannot be used to tackle the problem of more intensive home care. By so doing, the local authority has faced the problem of manpower restrictions imposed by the Government. If the Government glibly ask why the authority does not cut manpower in other areas of the social services, the authority would reply by saying that manpower in the social services has already been trimmed by 17 per cent. in the past two years so it is difficult to provide the additional resources needed for intensive home care from within the existing manpower of the local authority social services department. The Government in this as in other areas must consider the manpower implications of their policy.
The Government have responded to criticisms by saying that we should develop voluntary care within society. We welcome the increased financial assistance available for voluntary organisations. History shows that when voluntary organisations have pioneered developments and shown the way, the state thereafter assumes responsibility.
Strict limits are imposed on what voluntary organisations can do because of the need for consistency in the long term, because of the scale of the required operation. Although further progress can be made, the Government may be encouraging unrealistic expectations of the progress which can be made by expanding the voluntary sector.
Problems have occurred in the joint financing schemes—the tight financial targets and the tapering arrangements which many local authorities say have deterred them from embarking on worthwhile schemes. We must have clear, and permanent joint arrangements to gain the confidence of local authorities.
Can a service subjected to severe expenditure cuts cope with increased demographic and other demands imposed upon it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) has already referred to the rate-capping system—perhaps better described as Whitehall's knee-capping operation on local authorities.
If we wish to continue the growth of the community services for the elderly, we must consider whether we have abandoned the family and community structures which are necessary for the success of the operation.
Will the Government consider good neighbour schemes such as those pioneered in some parts of the United States — although the individuals who participate in the scheme must be carefully vetted? The scheme is needed at a time when, because of increased mobility, families are dispersed and individuals in the community are needed to assist the elderly and the handicapped by visiting them, shopping and reading to them. Such a scheme might make an inroad into the army of unemployed. The Government could encourage such a scheme by re-examining the rules of income in terms of unemployment benefit. People can participate in a proper community service activity without suffering the poor law implications which can be ascribed to it.
We could increase community care and mobilise some of the unemployed in our community with assistance through the benefit scheme, thereby enabling people to

485
live longer in their communities and be less liable to be institutionalised and giving much-needed work, identity, a role and above all dignity to the growing army of unemployed in our society.
8.34 pm
Mr. Timothy Yeo: I begin my contribution to this important debate by expressing strong support for Government policy in this area. I especially commend the consultative document, "Care in the Community". Publication of that document was a great step forward. It showed the Government's willingness to act where many of their predecessors had merely spoken. I am sorry that that has not been more clearly recognised by the Opposition. I listened in vain for the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) to say anything constructive other than endorsing existing Government policy.
"Care in the Community" was widely welcomed by the professionals and by voluntary organisations, including the Spastics Society. I shall refer to three aspects of that document. First, joint finance is being extended to cover housing and education. That is especially welcome. The elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill should not always be considered in terms of social service provision. The perpetuation of a medical and social service model for the care of those groups is unforunate, because they have other needs, especially in housing and education. In addition, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has said, £15 million is to be top sliced from the joint finance allocation to be used for a range of innovative and pilot projects. Innovation is essential. If we are to rehabilitate people into the community, we must be imaginative in the way in which we tackle the problems.
Secondly, in relation to mentally handicapped children in long-stay hospitals, I warmly endorse the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was Secretary of State for Social Services. He said:
"The time has come to state unequivocally that large hospitals do not provide a favourable environment for a mentally handicapped child to grow up in."
That statement was made three years ago. Since then a £1 million matching funds scheme has been set up, designed to encourage voluntary organisations to set up schemes to bring children out of long-stay hospitals. That was a further demonstration of the Government's determination to make progress with this problem. The Spastics Society has been promised £250,000 from the DHSS to establish a unit in the north-west to rehabilitate into the community children with multiple handicaps and severe behavioural problems. I hope that the Government will consider extending the pound-for-pound matching funds scheme and increasing the amount of money available so that more projects can be funded. A further £3 million from central funds is also available for health authorities with special problems to develop schemes to get children out of hospital.
Thirdly, the work of the voluntary organisations is close to my heart. They have traditionally provided community services for the elderly and the handicapped. They have supported those people in the community. Their services are an essential supplement to the work of the statutory authorities. They are often specialist. In relation to
486
handicapped people especially, an organisation dealing with a particular category of people can often provide specialist assistance which local authorities sometimes cannot provide. The service is often good value, too, because of the voluntary input. I therefore especially welcome the inclusion of these bodies on joint consultative committees. I know how valuable participation in the planning process will be to them.
Not everything in the garden is as perfect as we would like. There are many worries. For example, can health authorities, with ever-decreasing budgets, maintain hospital services and at the same time develop community services? The present method of administering joint finance gives local authorities less incentive than I should like them to have to develop community services, although the high rate of take-up, referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, is encouraging. I hope that it will continue.
Another worry is whether adequate resources are being allocated to get children out of hospitals. It would be highly desirable to set a date by which all children would be out of long-stay institutions for the mentally handicapped. The establishment of such a date would concentrate wonderfully the minds of the regional health authorities' administrators. I am not satisfied that regional health authorities are making enough progress in that direction. In addition to setting a date, if the numbers of children remaining in long-stay institutions were published regularly, that would help to focus regular public and political attention on the problem.
I stress the importance of providing support for those who do the caring in the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad of hon. Members' support. I still attach great importance, when resources permit, to the extension of the invalid care allowance to married and cohabiting women. At present there is discrimination against them which should be ended as soon as resources permit.
More directly relevant to the personal social services is the need for adequate and nationwide provision of short-term respite care. That would allow families the chance to have a break from the work which most of them do with great commitment and pleasure for their handicapped or elderly relatives. It is essential that those families have opportunities for a break from the burden of caring and that the respite care is undertaken locally rather than hundreds of miles away.
The Government's recognition of that problem was welcomed last year when they decided to save Tadworth Court children's hospital. It provides just such a service for many families with handicapped children who are in desperate need of a break. That was an imaginative and tangible demonstration of the Government's willingness to adopt an unusual scheme to preserve a valuable service on a cost-effective basis. I hope that that decision, and the transfer of Tadworth to the group of voluntary organisations which hope to take over the administration, will be accomplished very speedily.
I shall set an example and make my contribution brief. Everyone recognises the importance of personal social services in relation to community care, and acknowledges the growing size of the problem. Many hon. Members will undoubtedly have had the statistics kindly provided by, among others, Age Concern. Thankfully, the Government are facing the issues and tackling them positively and imaginatively. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister

487
said, the resources devoted to community care have substantially increased under the Government. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the motion and pass the amendment.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House might like to be informed that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 9.30 pm. Several hon. Members hope to speak before that.
8.44 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on his speech. Like the Minister, I thought that he spoke with great fluency and much feeling and consideration for the subject. I congratulate him on his choice of subject.
I am afraid that I can find no such ready words of praise for the Minister's speech. No doubt he will not be surprised. Although he delivered his speech extremely fluently, as he always does, it was the most extraordinary self-righteous tour de force that I have heard for a long time, even from him. He gave the impression that it was all a matter of avoiding waste or of administrative cost-cutting. There was not a word about rate-capping, cuts or a massive grant holdback.
We in the Opposition share the view of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) that we should like all children to be transferred out of long-stay institutions by a given date. However, there is no use suggesting such policies and voting down the line in support of economic policies that make that impossible.
If the Minister is really concerned about making cuts, I recommend him to look to the places where cuts can be made. I give two examples. First, the drug companies take advantage of the National Health Service. The second example is defence contractors. The Minister could make bigger savings in those areas rather than battening on some of the weakest and neediest in our society.
I welcome the debate, as it rightly draws attention not only to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society, caught in the vice of the Government's increasing squeeze on local authority spending, but—this is just as important—to the false economies that a policy of blind and obsessional cutting produces in the key area of personal social services. Improving community care should be the flagship of a caring society. Under the Government it has become the victim of accounting criteria that not only are damaging or short-sighted but, if present policies are not reversed, will lead to gross mismanagement of the nation's resources. I shall explain why.
The Minister has made a great deal of the 9 per cent. real growth in personal social services in the four years up to 1982–83. Perhaps it is now 12 per cent. The Minister mentioned that figure today, but perhaps that is over a five-year period.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): It is 12·7 per cent.
Mr. Meacher: Perhaps it is 12·7 per cent. The Ministershould not get so excited. If he listens to what I shall say,he will hear that the Government's record is not attractive.
There are two good reasons for regarding the growth rate as far from a triumph, which is the way in which the
488
Minister for Health seeks to represent it, but as distinctly unsatisfactory. One is that it is a fairly paltry record of growth when it is compared with what went beforehand. As I am sure the Minister knows, between 1969 and 1979, which I admit is a longer period, expenditure on personal social services went up by no less than 150 per cent in real terms. Therefore, when the 9 per cent. is put in perspective, it is a pretty poor falling off. This year there will almost certainly be a cut back in real term. Over the whole five-year period, there is no doubt that the Government have totally failed to expand the personal social services to the extent necessary for them to perform their real role as a major and complementary partner of the NHS.
There is a second, more serious reason why the 9 per cent. or 12 per cent. —or even 12·7 per cent.—is an alarming shortfall. It is insufficient even to keep up with the increasing number of elderly people who need the services. I entirely support what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said about the comparison with demand. That is the bench-mark by which we should judge performance in personal social services.
The Minister has all too often resorted to using the wrong criteria. It is not growth in real expenditure per se that is the real measure, but improvement in a constant level of service that takes account of extra demand. By that criterion, the Tory record over the past five years has been lamentably deficient in community care programmes. The Government's measure of a constant level of service is a 2 per cent. real expenditure increase per year The Minister said 1 per cent. I am not sure whether that was a slip.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: A demographic 1 per cent. increase.
Mr. Meacher: The Minister said there was a demographic 1 per cent. increase, but the figure which the DHSS has used repeatedly is 2 per cent. Even the DHSS does not believe that 2 per cent. additional growth per year is enough to meet the extra demand. In a written answer on 15 February the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said:
"central Government concluded last year that a minimum"—
that is the word I stress—
"expenditure growth of two per cent. was needed to maintain existing standards of service in the face of growing numbers of the very elderly and other increasing pressures." — [Official Report, 15 February 1983; Vol, 37, c. 135.]
There is irrefutable evidence that 2 per cent. is far too low. I suspect that many officials, if Ministers were to press them, would admit that.
To give one example, in 1980–81, when Government figures were registering real expenditure growth well in excess of the 2 per cent. demographic allowance, we now know from surveys that there were widespread cuts in service. In fact, 13 out of 18 areas of service suffered reductions in absolute levels of output at the same time as the Government tell us that there were real expenditure increases of 2·75 per cent.
The Association of Directors of Social Services in its latest report, of which the Minister will be aware, says that in its view 4 per cent. or even 6 per cent. real growth is required simply.
"to prevent standards from dropping".
That is a very important statement coming, as it does, from that association. I am well aware that the Minister replied

489
to that statement when it was made and I have read in detail what he said, but I still believe that the association is probably nearer the truth than he is, for two reasons.
One reason is rising unit costs. This is no fault of the Minister but he must take account of it and he is not doing so. For example, the Disability Alliance recently concluded that rising unit costs meant that 5 per cent. real expenditure growth purchased less than a 1 per cent. increase in services. I hope I have the Minister's attention because I think he has not taken account of the significance of that. It indicates that there are sharply rising unit costs and that a 2 per cent. increase in resources over and above inflation is completely insufficient to take account of extra demand and extra need.
The other reason is that under the Government's regime the level of services has nowhere near kept pace with the growing number of the over-75s. We are all agreed on the figures. I shall give one simple measure of this.
Mr. John Patten rose——
Mr. Meacher: I shall give way when I have given this example. In round terms there was a 10 per cent. reduction in residential places, home helps and meals on wheels per 1,000 population of the over-75s in 1980–81 compared with five years earlier; that is the real criterion. That was after two years in which the Government figures were allegedly registering real expenditure growtn of 4·5 per cent. and 2·5 per cent.
Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman was making his interesting point about the alleged rises in unit costs, my hon. and learned Friend and I were discussing exactly what the cause of these alleged increases was. Could the hon. Gentleman explain further?
Mr. Meacher: Residential care provision becomes more expensive at a faster rate than the increase in inflation. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the Loughborough paper, a major study which shows that between 1975–76 and 1980–81 there was a 2 per cent. increase in residential care places for the elderly but a 19 per cent. increase in cost in real terms. We appreciate that this is not the Government's fault, but all we ask is that they do not try to pretend that the record of the last five years is anywhere near adequate even to maintain standards, let alone improve them.
The first and crucial demand which we therefore make tonight of the Government is that if community care is not increasingly to become abandoned and if it is to mean something, they must recognise that a 2 per cent. real expenditure growth per year is wholly inadequate simply to maintain standards. If the Government will not commit themselves to a minimum annual growth target of 4 per cent. they are implicitly admitting to presiding over falling standards. That is the fact.
Mr. John Patten: The hon. Gentleman's argument is not soundly based.
Mr. Meacher: The Minister might say that my argument is not soundly based, but I can give him abundant evidence afterwards that all of the relevant authorities such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and relevant organisations believe that what I have said is soundly based and that what he says is not.
490
What I have just argued, however, is not the real case against the Government. The real case against them is that such growth as there has been in the personal social services owes nothing to the Government. Indeed, growth has occurred in the teeth of the Government's most bitter resistance. Local authorities that have been determined to maintain standards, let alone improve them, have had about as much encouragement from the Government as the luckless victims of a Star Chamber inquisition. That process is now culminating in rate cutting for their pains. For the Minister to preen himself on growth in personal social services under the Tory regime when in fact they have done their utmost to prevent it by checks on local authority spending is the most nauseating of double-talk.
It is largely only those local authorities that have suffered penalties for resisting Government cuts that have saved the Government's face by introducing any real growth in personal social services. In the past five years, Islington, for example, has increased its number of home helps per thousand of population over the age of 65 from 8·8 to 11·2. That is a remarkable achievement, and I give Islington credit for it. However, Islington is now being punished by the Government and is losing one fifth of its grant through holdback. Sheffield increased the number of its home helps during the same period from 9·5 to 11·5 and is now being rewarded by having 15 per cent. of its grant held back.
It is breathtaking arrogance on the part of the Government to hammer local authorities that are committed to preserving services for overspending, to intensify the pressure on authorities by increasing holdback and then opportunistically to claim that they are protecting services for the most vulnerable. If the Minister sincerely wanted to help the most vulnerable, he would be going down on his knees to thank local authorities such as those I have mentioned, not punishing them.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As I said in my opening speech, local authorities incur penalties for the totality of their spending. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we are penalising Islington for worthwhile developments in its provision of personal social services? Has he forgotten that Islington spends money on bizarre fringe activities? I understand that it was Islington which recently hired two people to try to stop the populatiom from telling Irish jokes. That is the type of expenditure which gets Islington into penalty. It is ridiculous to assert that we are imposing penalty because it has increased the number of home helps.
Mr. Meacher: For the Minister to suggest that the huge cuts that have been imposed on Islington are for reasons such as that which he gave is to reduce the debate to farce. He must realise that. Penalty has absolutely nothing to do with the minuscule, trivial and tiny episode to which he referred. Besides, I have no knowledge of it. Of course it is the totality of expenditure which is being held back, but, if the Government reduce the totality, local authorities that want to maintain or improve some services will be forced to make even larger cuts in others.
It is no thanks to the Government that, fortunately, most local authorities have tried to maintain their level of personal social services. The Government are insincere. The White Paper of November 1979 reveals all too clearly that the Government intended that personal social services should be treated more harshly than any other part of the

491
public service. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State is leaving the Chamber to check what I am about to say. He will be able to confirm that the White Paper envisaged a 6·7 per cent. reduction in spending on personal social services. That is what the Government intended. I believe that that is not what happened—thanks to local authorities defying the grant cutback, not to the Government's wish for an increase.
What is most worrying is that health services are rapidly deteriorating. Under the repeated hammer blows of the cuts, the number of authorities that failed to meet even the DHSS's minimal 2 per cent. real growth target is rapidly increasing. In 1979–80, a quarter of all authorities failed to meet that target, in 1980–81, nearly a half failed to do so; and in 1981–82, two thirds failed to do so. I predict that this year the figure will be 90 per cent. or more. This year it is now almost certain, in my view from looking at figures, that there will be a real overall cutback in personal social services—not just failure to meet the 2 per cent. growth target. That is a depressing prospect for many of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.
I urge the Government to take the one specific action that is within the parameters of their policies—I do not always agree with them — that could significantly alleviate the gathering crisis. I return, without apology, to joint finance schemes. These have been proved—we all agree — many times over as a means of sensibly transferring patients from National Health Service hospitals to local authority care. I urge the Government to reconsider the consequences of tapering arrangements for revenue expenditure as they constitute a threat to the continuation of these schemes. Several local authorities have decided not to embark upon any new, jointly financed projects, especially with rate capping imminent. They include Barnet, Knowsley, Ealing, Bexley, Newcastle, Oldham — that is my area — Sutton and Gateshead. I list them to show that not one of these authorities is one that the Minister or some of his colleagues would dare to call profligate authorities.
It is surely unfair that authorities which duly meet these commitments — which, in some cases, will increase eight-fold during the next seven years—will incur rate support grant penalties even larger than the bills.
If the Minister is serious, as I like to believe he is, in his pretensions to protect these schemes not only as a central hinge of community care provision, but as most sensible allocation of the nation's resources, I urge him strongly to reconsider what he said and to consult again with his colleagues—because this is not just a matter for him— in the Department of the Environment and the Treasury with a view to ensuring that this expenditure is disregarded in calculating, if not targets, liability for grant holdback.
A devastating crisis is building up in community care. It is fuelled by inadeqate expenditure outlays, and now annual cuts; by grant penalties, and now rate-capping; by rapidly growing demand; by rising unit costs of residential care provision, and by a dogmatic Government attitude towards joint finance schemes which, sadly, will deny thousands of elderly, disabled and chronically ill people the community care that they desperately need. If their voice is not heard, because they are not organised, do not have the capacity to demonstrate or the power to withdraw their labour, that is not a reason why the House should ignore their plea.
492
Nor do cutbacks make even economic sense. Some of those in the community who could have coped with support will deteriorate more swiftly and make demands on expensive health services. The knock-on effect of reduced support services and the subsequent increased demand and other inroads made by patients into the patient health care system, will achieve the opposite of what the Government intend. The effects will be long term. In community care, today's cuts are tomorrow's crisis. That is why the Opposition are opposing the application of damaging and short-sighted cutbacks to the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.
9.5 pm
Mrs. Anna McCurley: As the time available is short, I shall endeavour to be brief. Following the Minister's excellent exposition of the Government's case in maintaining support for the funding of community services, the Opposition response clearly showed that they do not understand either the financing or the will of the Government. There is no doubt about the Government's commitment to the funding of community services and, indeed, all social services.
When in opposition, Conservative Members were faced with a Labour Government who were adding to massive inflation. We looked for an alternative source of funding care in the community. We were concerned about the people mentioned in the motion. We looked to the voluntary services, and since then we have been consistent in our support for them. In 1980 a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer released £300 million into the voluntary sector, through tax concessions on gifts and bequests and employment costs.
It is not the Government's will for funding that is wrong, but the attitude of Socialist-controlled local authorities. I have experience of local authorities, and know that they have an intense dislike of the voluntary sector, because they are concerned to maintain centralised control over their expenditure. I see that happening in my authority in the share-out of finances for child care and the squeezing out of the voluntary sector.
Local authorities, despite the restraints on them, are still empire building. They built empires to such an extent that they increased their staff levels to a ridiculous point. During a recent discussion with the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), he described the local authority system as a form of Stalinism. Those were his words, not mine, but I am forced to agree with him. The attitude of local authorities has contributed greatly to a consistent budgetary overspend. Local authorities, especially Socialist local authorities, are failing to establish priorities.
My local authority of Strathclyde has been innovative and courageous in many respects. It can cope with its statutory obligations within its budget. It has a strong child-oriented policy, which stems from a document called "Born to Fail", which told of the multiple deprivation suffered by many children in the Strathclyde region. At the same time, the Government are injecting into that authority massive sums of urban aid which go to assist those children.
There is a declining population of children. It is high time that we looked at the balance of the budget. As we have heard many times tonight, the elderly population is increasing. I appreciate, as we all do, the problems of the

493
elderly. Despite the fact that we know that the problem is growing in intensity, little has been done by local authorities to care for the elderly. There is a great deal of cant at local authority level when talking about the elderly. Local authorities have it in their power to make policy decisions to help the old. My authority attacked one of the most vital services upon which the elderly depend—the home help service. In other words, it was playing a cynical game with the Government at the expense of these elderly people.
Let me revert to the record of care of voluntary bodies which, in association with local authorities, help our elderly people. We can see from the statistics how the voluntary services benefit our elderly people. However, the way in which they operate casts severe doubts on the operation and the budgeting of local authorities. I can quote from the Scottish abstract of statistics. In March 1979 there were 39 local authority day centres in Scotland, with 1,355 places. In March 1982 there were 64 day centres, with 2,212 places. The voluntary register of day centres shows that in March 1979 there were 10 day centres, with 2,168 places, and in March 1982 there were 11 day centres with 2,740 places. Those figures show that the 11 voluntary day centres serve more people than 64 local authority day centres. This, above all, shows clearly the benefit which the voluntary sector gives us.
It has been said tonight that joint financing with health authorities is an excellent arrangement. In theory it is in some districts, and is working extremely well, but in my region it is working extremely badly. Despite the heavy increase in Government commitments to joint financing, there appears to be, at local level, a failure to understand the needs of the elderly. Local authorities talk in grandiose terms about geriatric hospitals and the need for geriatric provision. However, geriatric provision is only a small portion of the needs of older people. Most people over the age of 70 are not geriatric in the medical sense—they are just getting old. The problem is the failure of the liaison committees to differentiate between elderly, confused, frail people who can be coped with in the community and low-key nursing day centres, and those who need geriatric services. It is this squabbling and the failure to establish definitions that have inhibited progress in getting not only the assessment but the financing right, and getting on with the job of making the provisions right.
We have only one problem in our part of the world. Much of that problem can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of Socialism. There is a failure on the part of many people to be personally responsible for their elderly people. Governments can reflect the compassion of a society, but it is difficult for Governments to try to teach people compassion. One of the dreadful problems that we face is that elderly relatives who have been transferred from their homes or those of their relatives into hospital find that when they are out of what might be called the geriatric term, have been rehabilitated back into the community and are sent back home, they are rejected by their families.
Part of the burden on the social services arises from the failure of people to take responsibility for their elderly relatives. I urge the joint liaison committees to look more closely into the counselling of relatives. There is an urgent necessity to fund this movement. The movers of the motion did not talk about personal responsibility. One of
494
the Government's policies in every subject has been to make people aware of that and to move us back towards it. In supporting the Government we shall be well on the way to doing that.
9.15 pm
Mr. David Alton: The last time that I heard the Minister for Health speak was three weeks ago in the Cambridge Union, when we were opposing each other in a debate on whether the proliferation of parties in British politics was a good or a bad thing. I was arguing that it would be a good thing and on that occasion I am glad to say that we won the debate. I expect that tonight the vote may go differently.
Mr. John Patten: I am afraid so.
Mr. Alton: The Under-Secretary took part in the Adjournment debate last night at which I was present. He will know that that is regularly the case, unfortunately, in the House.
The debate has been a good example of two parties such as the Social Democratic and Liberal parties airing an issue that might not otherwise be debated during the mainstream time of Parliament. The contributions this evening from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and from Conservative Members demonstrate that this is an issue upon which people feel strongly, across the Chamber, and have important contributions to make.
Many of us come from what might be called the cod liver oil and orange juice generation, and we have watched with a great deal of worry as we have seen the frontiers of the welfare state being rolled back. In particular, it has become a great crusade to talk in terms similar to those in which the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) spoke, when she talked about the need for the individual to assert himself and take responsibility. No alliance Member would disagree with that argument, but we also believe that a safety net should be provided. The hon. Lady will not be surprised, as other hon. Members will not be, at heirs of a legacy that goes back to David Lloyd George, William Beveridge and Keynes offering a motion such as this.
We offer this motion in a constructive way. Much of the rhetoric has come from the Government — not necessarily from the Minister, but from many of his colleagues—is not a rhetoric that does any good to the social services, the Health Service or the welfare state. We believe that it stems from a basic philosophy which expects the individual to survive where might and greed are important and where vulnerability is not believed to be at all important.
It is worth looking at the writings of that great Tory party guru, Milton Friedman, to see where the party gets much of its thinking. He said:
"Indigence was simply the punishment meted out to the improvident by their own lack of industry and efficiency. Far from being a blessed state, poverty was the obvious consequence of sloth and sinfulness".
The concept that sloth and sinfulness should be the reason why people are poor or vulnerable defeats me. It is based on the argument that one must blame the victim, and that the victim is responsible for the circumstances in which he lives.
I referred a moment ago to Sir William Beveridge. In his maiden speech in the House in 1944, he said:
"I suggest that our aim should be that every British citizen, who works while he can and contributes while he is working and

495
earning, should be assured of an old age without want, without dependence on the young, and without the need for charity or assistance".—[Official Report, 3 November 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1127.]
That is something for which Liberals will go on arguing in this Chamber all these years later.
One can go back even further than that, to the time of David Lloyd George who, in 1909, said:
"I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time when poverty and wretchedness and human degradation which always follow in its camp will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests".
For Liberals, 70 years later, it is profoundly disturbing that the rhetoric of Thatcherism has all but become the orthodoxy of political language. Butskellite corporatism has been replaced by a meaner and more selfish approach which all too readily blames the victim. That approach is again exemplified by Friedman, who warned that the major evil is the
"effect [of welfare programmes] on the fabric of our society. They weaken the family, reduce the incentive to work, save and innovate; reduce the accumulation of capital and limit our freedom."
Life may look like that from the Downing street bunker, but for those of us who are outside it, that theory appears to be devoid of humanity and sanity. Exhortations to privatise, to self-help, for family life, for the return of women to their homes, for Victorian virtue, for saving, for rationalisation and for efficiency, are all important, but they are no substitute for the care that the vulnerable in our community have a right to expect.
Mr. Robert Parry rose——
Mr. Alton: I shall give way in a moment.
Malcolm Dean, writing in The Guardian, put it well when he described this Administration as
"a Government which does not feel guilty about the poor."
David Donnison, as chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, concluded that
"The new team has shed the burden of social conscience."
Mr. Parry: Is not the hon. Gentleman adopting the usual Liberal attitude of playing both sides against the middle? He referred to David Lloyd George, but he would be more up to date if he referred to Sir Trevor Jones, who was leader of the Liberal party in Liverpool for many years. Under Liberal leadership, social services, the sick, the disabled and home helps in Liverpool were attacked. Now that a Labour-controlled council is in power the Liberals are playing the same game by attacking the Labour party for trying to put right the mess in which the Liberals and Tories left us.
Mr. Alton: I shall refer to home helps later. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) is wrong when he suggests that the Liverpool city council is acting differently from any other council in the country. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made the point earlier—I use this point to refute what the hon. Member for Riverside has just said—that every single council in the country has had its funding reduced. One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. No Liberal would blame the present Government or any other Government for Britain's economic malaise, but we believe that the Government stand condemned for their failure to stand up for those most in need and for their stigmatisation of dependency. The Government boasted earlier that
496
personal social services had not been cut, but, as I argued yesterday and have argued before, demographic changes mean that there are new challenges and that resources must increase and not just stand still. Many local authority cuts are rational decisions, given the reduced expenditure available to them. Boarding out for children and day care services for the mentally ill have been improved. There have been improved services, but that is because those were sensible economic and, some would argue, socially sensible decisions to take. That does not make them bad, but at the same time they are determined by the financial restraints placed on local authorities. It is easy to dispose of home care helps, because often those people are employed for short periods. Many local authorities have made massive reductions in home care helps.
The situation in the city of Liverpool is highly unsatisfactory. Last year Liverpool had 1,900 clients and only 144 home helps to meet that need. The DHSS guidelines say that it should have 967 home helps. I have argued in the past that it is madness to have more than 67,000 people there being paid over £5,500 a year to stay in the dole queue when work remains to be done. In other words, that relates a need in the community to people available to do it. We should be improving our home help service, taking demographic changes into account and ensuring that meals on wheels and other important facilities for the elderly are provided.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an absolute disgrace for a city the size of Liverpool, with about 400,000 people, to have only 144 home helps? Will he further agree that that has been due to the policy of the local authority? Birmingham, only twice the size, has about 2,000 home helps.
Mr. Alton: A city which has lost over £100 million in rate support grant as the result of Government cuts in the last four years must make savings and cannot meet all its needs. We are speaking of a city which has one in four of its population over the retirement age, with the fastest growing group the over-80s. That is clearly an argument for increased provision, but local authorities cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
It is a problem facing not only the city of Liverpool. The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. That organisation estimates that as a result of cuts in expenditure, 7,000 places will be lost in old people's homes, 40,000 fewer people will have home help visits, 50,000 fewer meals will be delivered and 60,000 teaching jobs, and a further 40,000 non-teaching jobs will be slashed.
Those figures come not just from think tank reports or reports leaked to The Guardian. We have seen the reality of Conservative policies in the last four years. The unified housing benefit resulted in 2 million vulnerable people being made an average of 75p a week worse off, and 200,000 other people, according to SHAC, are not claiming benefits to which they are entitled. That is a direct result of Government policies.
The challenge is enormous. It is estimated that there are today 7 million people dependent on supplementary benefit; that for every 100 people on the poverty line in 1979 there are now 160; that the number of claimants of working age on supplementary benefit has doubled; and that by 1984 there will be almost 2 million children on

497
benefit. The same is true of the elderly. It is estimated that by the year 2001 the number of people aged over 75 will have risen by about 493,000 and that the number aged over 85 will have increased by about 288,000. That means a greater need for more sheltered accommodation, more bungalows for the elderly and greater protection for the elderly.
I urge the Government to consider implementing the terms of the Victims of Violent Crimes Bill that I introduced two years ago. That would ensure that elderly people were provided with alarms, telephones and porterage systems and that more assistance was given to the establishment in the community of victim support schemes. It cannot be right that there should be only 150 voluntary victim support schemes throughout the country. There should be many more. At present they are receiving the pittance of £50,000 a year from the Government. When elderly people become the victims of violent crime, the DHSS gives them only £2 a day on which to live, yet many of them have lost the electricity and gas money and even money for food. That is a practical way in which the community, and especially the Government, can respond.
In his opening remarks the Minister made an important statement about child care. I welcome that statement, which corresponded closely to a child care measure which I introduced 18 months ago. Many of the announcements that he made tonight are much needed because of the Kafkaesque cycle where social workers have sat as judge and jury, defence and prosecution when dealing with their clients. I welcome what the Minister said tonight but, as he accepted, it does not go all the way. There is still scope for the introduction of measures such as family courts and I hope that in the longer term the rights of the individual child will matter just as much as those of the parent. It is about time that the balance between the power of the social worker and the individual was redressed.
To Liberals, the community and its needs are a starting point. We see its demands as a stimulating challenge. That is why we and our hon. Friends in the Social Democratic party who have tabled the motion tonight commend it to the House.
9.29 pm
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I hope that hon. Members will understand if I do not pick up every point that has been made in the debate. The Minister began by making great play of the money that has been spent by local authorities in the past five years. He talked about a growth of 12·7 per cent. In fact, the money that has been put into social services is not a Government but a local government miracle. Despite Government efforts to cut back on expenditure, local authorities have managed to keep pace with needs, and that is what is amazing. Despite the ravages imposed by the Government, many local authorities have developed social services in the ways in which I and my hon. Friends would wish.
It is not only demographic matters which require the money spent on social services to be increased; it is also such things as the demands of new legislation, and that has not been mentioned tonight. That inevitably puts new demands on local authorities which the Government never seem to recognise by making resources available to them. Above all, unemployment is the engine which increases the need for expenditure on social services. The
498
correlation between the needs of the social services and unemployment has been demonstrated time and again. I hope that Conservative Members appreciate that while they have policies which increase unemployment to such an amazingly high level, the needs of the social services will inevitably increase.
It is easy to talk about the global figures and say that in so many million pounds there must be waste to cut out. Everybody appreciates that it is easy to say that and perhaps, here and there, there is. However, one can only do so for so long. There is bound to be a point at which it cannot be done. To say that there are administrative savings to be made is to do a great disservice to the many people who are underpinning the social workers—the case workers and those who go out into the streets. They are doing a great deal of financial and administrative work in the local authorities. It is a juggling of resources that can only go on for so long.
It is interesting to quote the Select Committee on Social Services which reported in July 1982. Despite what the Minister said, the Committee found:
"Day care places have fallen in proportion to the population over 75 since 1979–80, as have the number of hours of home help contact for that population. Between 1975–76 and 1980–81, home help hours of service to those over 75 failed by 8 per cent. to keep pace with the growing numbers of elderly, and meals served to those over 75 failed by 11·6 per cent."
Those figures were not produced by some local authority or its association which Conservative Members disparage but by a House of Commons Select Committee.
The Minister talked about pump priming and the new money being produced. It is fine to develop pump priming but often in doing so there is insufficient time to see where the money will come from to sustain it. Voluntary bodies have been put under immense pressure by being given finance only from year to year. Many people will not come into pump priming exercises and experimental schemes when there is no prospect of employemt for longer than one year. That applies, for example, to Opportunities for Vounteering — a splendid scheme but, unfortunately, employment is guaranteed for only 12 months at a time. When I was working in the voluntary sector I found it difficult to expect people to enter employment when there is no greater guarantee.
The Minister talked about the Government's new ideas and new money. Looking at the global figures for local government it seems that much more has been taken away. However, there is another problem that the Minister must face; that is that, in many experiments—many of the good schemes that the voluntary sector has taken on—there is a great bulge of time expiry. Unless the Government pick up the point that many schemes will now fail if they do not provide more resources for them, many good schemes will fail to continue. The great majority of the schemes are not being evaluated and there is no suggestion of any possibility of continuing schemes that have proved to be successful. The Government's figures are therefore not always what they seem, because many schemes will fail and disappear in the very near future.
The Government have put great pressure on the local authorities and the voluntary bodies to embark on more capital projects, without recognising that there are revenue implications in every case. Great problems will face a voluntary body that takes on a capital scheme of any kind without the provision of revenue expenditure to underpin it. I could give a number of examples, taken from around the country, of cases in which a voluntary body has taken

499
on a scheme under the encouragement of the Government but because of such under-funding, is having great difficulty in continuing it.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) is not in his place. His views today were much more muted than they were on the last occasion I heard him speak, when we shared a platform before the election. The hon. Gentleman then made most trenchant criticisms of the Government. It is astonishing now to realise what changes were wrought by 9 June, and to hear the hon. Member giving the Government so much support. I remember that the hon. Gentleman made tremendous criticisms of the imposition of VAT on voluntary bodies. I would have expected him to make that point today.
I welcomed and appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), particularly his comments on the choice of subject. In view of those comments, it may be churlish to criticise the hon. Gentleman. However, some of his colleagues, particularly in the local authorities, do not seem to believe as strongly as he does in community care. Many people in the voluntary bodies believe that many Labour-controlled local authorities prefer to believe that if something is worth doing, the state must do it. One cannot have it both ways. If they believe in community care—if they believe in the place of the voluntary sector in society—those local authorities must encourage the voluntary bodies to pick up some of the schemes that are most appropriate to them.
One phrase used by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) gave away much of her case. She said that when local government is under pressure, we look to the voluntary bodies. That is not the spirit in which we should encourage the partnership between the statutory and the voluntary sectors. One should not turn to the voluntary sector in an escapist fashion when there are financial pressures. It was unfair of the hon. Lady to compare the services provided by the voluntary sector with apparently comparable services in the statutory sector. Very often, and for very good reasons, the voluntary sector is not coping with those in the greatest need in any one category. For example. a considerable amount of good work in sheltered housing is done by the voluntary bodies. However, I know from my own experience in Leeds that, by and large, they do not take in people in the same depths of need as do the statutory services. Inevitably, therefore, the statutory services in that sector will have greater costs to meet.
The hon. Lady then mentioned personal responsibility. No one would doubt that personal responsibility is crucial, but many people are taking on burdens of responsibility that they cannot possibly cope with. At a conference, I heard a speaker from the Association of Carers, which is trying to find ways of giving people respite care —giving them some time off from caring. She told us of someone who was caring for a very elderly parent, who said that she was frightened of respite care. She was terrified of having her door opened to the world, and of not wanting to go back in after a period of respite care. It is a question of enabling people to carry on with day-to-day caring. We should not just tell them that it is their personal responsibility. There are costs involved in that, which local authorities and the Government must take on.
No one would dispute that joint financing is important. The increased flexibility that the Government have provided is most valuable and is to be welcomed. However, the Government must accept that local
500
authorities will not want to avail themselves of such flexibility if their general expenditure is to be attacked through rate penalties. The authority will not be able to cope without making cuts elsewhere. It is ridiculous that a local authority social services department should have to decide, for example, between not taking up more home help places and continuing previous jointly financed projects.
I hope that the debate has highlighted the importance of linkages. There are linkages between social security provision and the NHS, and between the social services and the NHS. Unless the debate concentrates on those areas, they will be hidden behind the smokescreen of the total cuts imposed. For example, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has Thornton View hospital in his constituency. Indeed, it was mentioned the other day in the debate on the NHS cuts. An interesting fact about that hospital is that Bradford social services department is on the same site. Some years ago Bradford social services department asked about the future of that hospital, and were told that it was assured. Consequently, the local authority invested considerable funds. However, having expended considerable resources, the authority is now faced with a threat to the hospital. The linkage between the NHS and the social services has not been maintained and as a result all three political leaders on the local authority have written to the Minister saying that they want Thornton View to remain open and quoting their input into that scheme.
The Government do not seem to understand what it means to draw together the different forces within the community. There are tremendous strengths in the community and there is tremendous power at a neighbourhood level. Unfortunately, the Government's divisive policy in so many different spheres undermines that strength and prevents it from being liberated. For example, the stigma attached to those on unemployment benefit means that they feel unable to claim the sums due to them, because they are made to feel that they are scroungers. After all, attitudes are just as important as reality.
I was struck by an article that appeared in today's edition of The Times and which was written by Sir William Rees-Mogg. — [Interruption.] I would not have thought that he was a hostile witness. He said:
"All wisdom about human affairs depends on humility, sympathy, and the search for general rules."
There is very little humility or sympathy on the Government's side. The search for general rules has become a desire to dominate from the centre. Time and again the Government hide behind global figures. They give us all the global figures, but they will not respond—as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said—to the point that what is happening at the grass roots level bears no relation at all to those figures. If there is so much money available and so much growth, why do local authorities have to agonise about whether to close wards or cut the numbers of home helps? It just does not add up. I hope that the House will reject the amendment and support the motion.
9.44 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I have only 16 minutes in which to attempt to reply to the debate. That is rather different from the situation in which I found myself last

501
night following the debate on health care in the Liverpool region. I then had two and three quarter hours in which to conclude the Adjournment debate. I thought for one ghastly moment, when warfare was breaking out between the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), that I was back in the middle of the nightmarish two and a half hours which I faced last night.
The debate has been most interesting and the Government are grateful to the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party for tabling the motion, but I am less grateful and very surprised at the terms in which it is expressed. The motion, is not redolent of the reasonable and reasoned public face which the alliance likes to put before the electorate. Instead, it is redolent with words of condemnation of what the Government are doing. The motion might well have been written by that late lamented-figure the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who was until recently the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition. It is within the lingua franca— [HON. MEMBERS: "Bring her back!"] I agree. We should bring her back.
There was a weak display of statistical expertise by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Following the fashion set by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), he wandered out of the Chamber but has now just returned to hear my strictures. We used to have a noisy debate when the hon. Lady for Crewe and Nantwich was present. We miss her very much. We are obviously going to have a statistical time in future.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Oldham, West considers the implications of the statistics that he uses. The hon. Gentleman suggested that one of the reasons why expenditure on the personal social services had increased was that unit costs were rising. After my intervention—to which he gave way, but I do not intend to allow him to interrupt me because I do not have sufficient time—the hon. Gentleman said that that was because of a 19 per cent. increase in the cost of residential homes, as though an immutable Meacherite law decreed that unit costs rise exponentially.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when he is in mid-flow, but I would be helped, as would the House and the Official Report, if he would try to avoid turning his back on the chair.
Mr. Patten: I am extremely sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for turning my back on you. I meant no personal disrespect at all. I thought that I was about to be ticked off for using the word "Meacherite". I am relieved that I am not to be pulled up by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for using that word.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West when referring to the 19 per cent. increase, suggested that that proved that we needed more expenditure in the personal social services but he did not stop to think for one moment whether the increase in public expenditure was necessary or whether good management might improve the position.
The terms of blanket condemnation in which the motion has been written are disappointing and uncharacteristic of the alliance generally and of its public face.
502
I was equally disappointed, I am afraid, in what was otherwise an excellent and fluent speech by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, in the way in which he condemned almost everything that the Government had done. The one exception was a brief and halting sentence about the increased expenditure on voluntary sector funding in this country. Tomorrow's Official Report will show that what I have said is correct. That, too, is most disappointing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not regard it as impertinent if I commend to him the quaint old-fashioned habit of staying in the Chamber to hear the rest of the debate after making one's own speech. I was sorry that he saw fit to leave so soon after the end of his contribution, not returning until 9.25 pm. Apart from anything else, he missed a number of charming compliments on the excellence of his speech. It would certainly have been agreeable if he had listened to the rest of the debate.
In many ways, the most constructive speech today was that of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Unfortunately, he is not in his place to hear my compliments. Although he strongly criticised a number of aspects of Government social policy he made a thoughtful and balanced contribution with some particularly interesting suggestions as to ways in which we might improve neighbourhood care in this country.
A similarly constructive approach characterised the interesting but brief speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), who wound up the debate for the alliance. Leeds must be an interesting place to live in, with Balliol and bar-room brawling in Leeds, East and J. B. Priestley pragmatism in Leeds, West—a rather undistinguished sting in the tail that the hon. Gentleman will regret having read on to the record.
Extremely constructive also was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on—you have only 10 minutes."] I know that the Opposition are enjoying my speech and would like me to go on for longer. In the time remaining I intend to deal with a number of aspects entirely untouched by the alliance speeches — with the exception, again, of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, who at least mentioned the carers. It is unfortunate that the Opposition have shown no care for the carers who give so much help to society. That is in contrast with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who picked out this important area for attention. Far from deserving the blanket condemnation that we have received from the Opposition, the Government have done a great deal in this area. The support needed for carers varies widely. The Department's social work service has undertaken an important and widely praised development work project to give extra help to the carers who do so much to help the social services. That is a most important aspect.
I draw the attention of alliance Members to some of the positive and entirely innovatory achievements that the Government have managed in the past two or three years. The number of innovations in relation not just to carers but across the board that have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considerable. Behind many of those innovations has been the fertile brain and political imagination of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who is responsible for the disabled and has contributed a great deal to the development of the social services in this country in recent years.

503
I cite just one example of the advances that have been made. The Department has been giving support to the central costs of the national Council for Carers of Elderly Dependants. It has been giving financial aid to the Association of Carers specifically to give help in this area. We have recently added to the list of organisations. It is important to go into detail here, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West has claimed that we are fond of talking in global figures but do not know what it is like at the grass roots. We have recently given a grant of £50,000 spread over two years to support a brand new grassroots organisation concerned with helping the carers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South referred in his admirable speech—an organisation called Contact-a-Family. We also support organisations such as MENCAP and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship which undertake detailed grassroots work in important areas.
In view of the contribution made by the Government to the voluntary sector and to alternative ways of coping with need, I thought it a bit much that the alliance's somewhat overdramatically written motion did not recognise any of the great developments that the Government have achieved. A number of areas of co-operation underlie our ever-deepening relationship with the voluntary sector. It is a great shame that the alliance, which sets such store on being fair and even-handed, chose not to recognise those facts today. Do alliance Members decry the fact that the volume of resources given to voluntary organisations has increased by 11 per cent. since last year? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do they decry the fact that the overall financial support to the voluntary sector, excluding that from local authorities, has increased to £25 million this year from £15 million last year?
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, West, in the thoughtful part of his speech, and before the unfortunate sting in the tail—the sting that turned round and stung him—commend the scheme for opportunities for volunteering. That has been a great success, particularly in the local framework at the. grassroots. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health talked about our global achievements because we are proud of them. Everything at national level is mirrored locally at the grassroots, where much social care is carried out by voluntary organisations, statutory organisations and our excellent social workers.
It is unfortunate that sometimes the tabloid newspapers gratuitously attack the social work profession, which does so much good. Are alliance Members not content, for example, with the way in which the Government have ensured better communications with the voluntary sector by giving them places on the joint consultative committees, which plan the funding made available through the joint funding process? It strikes me as unreasonable and irrational of the alliance to ignore the fact that during the Government's years of office real resources, taking account of the rise in prices, devoted to joint finance have increased by 50 per cent. That is one of the Government's major achievements in social services and one of which the Minister for Health is rightly proud.
The Government have introduced special detailed initiatives in intermediate treatment, and in day care for the under-fives. They have made more advances than any Government since the second world war. Pilot projects for psychogeriatrics are springing up all over the country, which are at the feet of the Government to put into action. The Government have changed the law relating to
504
voluntary and private homes to integrate them more into the social provision framework. We owe much to voluntary homes. It is important to get mentally handicapped children out of hospital. All those introductions, both in terms of money and the detailed grassroots provision, are part and parcel of the Government's aim to support dependent people and children in the community. I hope that alliance Members will support that, rather than decry it in the overall blanket condemnation in their motion on the Order Paper.
The Conservative party and the Conservative Government have taken the concept of care in the community, provided resources for it and made it a living phenomenon and not merely the dream of social workers and social theorists. That is one of the Government's great achievements since 1979. For that reason, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this absurd, irrelevant and most un-alliance-like motion.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:-
The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 164.

Division No. 65]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Meacher, Michael

Ashdown, Paddy

Meadowcroft, Michael

Bermingham, Gerald

Nellist, David

Bruce, Malcolm

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Parry, Robert

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Pavitt, Laurie

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

Penhaligon, David

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Pike, Peter

Fisher, Mark

Prescott, John

Freud, Clement

Robertson, George

Golding, John

Rogers, Allan

Haynes, Frank

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Howells, Geraint

Sheerman, Barry

Hoyle, Douglas

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Stott, Roger

Johnston, Russell

Wainwright, R.

Kennedy, Charles

Wallace, James

Kirkwood, Archibald

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Loyden, Edward

Wareing, Robert

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Maclennan, Robert

McWilliam, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Madden, Max

Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. John Cartwright.

Marek, Dr John

NOES

Adley, Robert

Coombs, Simon

Amess, David

Cope, John

Ashby, David

Couchman, James

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Dicks, T.

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baldry, Anthony

Dover, Denshore

Batiste, Spencer

Dunn, Robert

Bellingham, Henry

Eggar, Tim

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Evennett, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Eyre, Reginald

Bottomley, Peter

Fallon, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Bright, Graham

Fookes, Miss Janet

Brinton, Tim

Forth, Eric

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bruinvels, Peter

Fox, Marcus

Buck, Sir Antony

Franks, Cecil

Bulmer, Esmond

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Butcher, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Butterfill, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Chope, Christopher

Grylls, Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Harris, David

505

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Hayward, Robert

Raffan, Keith

Heddle, John

Rathbone, Tim

Hirst, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Howard, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

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

Rowe, Andrew

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Ryder, Richard

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Jackson, Robert

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Key, Robert

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lilley, Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luce, Richard

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lyell, Nicholas

Speed, Keith

McCrindle, Robert

Speller, Tony

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Spencer, D.

Macfarlane, Neil

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacGregor, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Stern, Michael

Maclean, David John.

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Major, John

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Malins, Humfrey

Stradling Thomas, J.

Malone, Gerald

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Maples, John

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Marlow, Antony

Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

Mather, Carol

Thurnham, Peter

Maude, Francis

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tracey, Richard

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mellor, David

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Merchant, Piers

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Viggers, Peter

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Waddington, David

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Moate, Roger

Walden, George

Moore, John

Waller, Gary

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Warren, Kenneth

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Watson, John

Murphy, Christopher

Watts, John

Neale, Gerrard

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Newton, Tony

Wheeler, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wiggin, Jerry

Normanton, Tom

Winterton, Nicholas

Norris, Steven

Wolfson, Mark

Onslow, Cranley

Wood, Timothy

Oppenheim, Philip

Woodcock, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Page, John (Harrow W)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Tellers for the Noes:

Powell, William (Corby)

Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Michael Neubert.

Powley, John

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 40.

Division No. 66]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Amess, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Ashby, David

Bottomley, Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Bright, Graham

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Brinton, Tim

Baldry, Anthony

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Batiste, Spencer

Bruinvels, Peter

Bellingham, Henry

Buck, Sir Antony

506

Bulmer, Esmond

Murphy, Christopher

Butcher, John

Neale, Gerrard

Butterfill, John

Newton, Tony

Chope, Christopher

Nicholls, Patrick

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Normanton, Tom

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Norris, Steven

Coombs, Simon

Onslow, Cranley

Cope, John

Oppenheim, Philip

Couchman, James

Ottaway, Richard

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Page, John (Harrow W)

Dicks, T.

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Dorrell, Stephen

Patten, John (Oxford)

Dover, Denshore

Powell, William (Corby)

Dunn, Robert

Powley, John

Eggar, Tim

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Evennett, David

Proctor, K. Harvey

Eyre, Reginald

Raffan, Keith

Fallon, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Rhodes James, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Forth, Eric

Roe, Mrs Marion

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Rowe, Andrew

Fox, Marcus

Ryder, Richard

Franks, Cecil

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Goodlad, Alastair

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Grylls, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hampson, Dr Keith

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Harris, David

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hayward, Robert

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Heddle, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hirst, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Speed, Keith

Howard, Michael

Spencer, D.

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

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Stern, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Jackson, Robert

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Key, Robert

Stradling Thomas, J.

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Lilley, Peter

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Lord, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Luce, Richard

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Lyell, Nicholas

Tracey, Richard

McCrindle, Robert

Twinn, Dr Ian

McCurley, Mrs Anna

van Straubenzee, SirW.

MacGregor, John

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Viggers, Peter

Maclean, David John.

Waddington, David

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Major, John

Walden, George

Malins, Humfrey

Waller, Gary

Malone, Gerald

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Maples, John

Warren, Kenneth

Marlow, Antony

Watson, John

Mather, Carol

Watts, John

Maude, Francis

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wheeler, John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Wiggin, Jerry

Mellor, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Merchant, Piers

Wolfson, Mark

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Wood, Timothy

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Woodcock, Michael

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Yeo, Tim

Moate, Roger

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Moore, John

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Michael Neubert.

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Moynihan, Hon C.

NOES

Alton, David

Bruce, Malcolm

Ashdown, Paddy

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Beith, A. J.

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Bermingham, Gerald

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

507

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Haynes, Frank

Parry, Robert

Howells, Geraint

Penhaligon, David

Hoyle, Douglas

Robertson, George

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rogers, Allan

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Johnston, Russell

Sheerman, Barry

Kennedy, Charles

Skinner, Dennis

Loyden, Edward

Steel, Rt Hon David

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Stott, Rogor

Maclennan, Robert

Wallace, James

McWilliam, John

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Madden, Max

Wareing, Robert

Marek, Dr John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Meacher, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Meadowcroft, Michael

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. John Cartwright.

Nellist, David

Question acordingly agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognising the constraints imposed by the needs of the national economy, applauds the Government's initiative in promoting new policies for personal social services as set out in "Care in the Community" including new measures to ensure that more of the elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped are enabled to be cared for a: or near their own homes rather than in institutions; welcomes the Government's action in improving and extending the Joint Finance Scheme, improving co-operation between statutory services and voluntary groups and increasing financial support for the voluntary sector; and looks forward to a continuing steady improvement in the level and quality of support available to those in need in the community.

Petitions

  Contraception (Under-age Girls)
  10.21 pm
  Mr. William Shelton: I beg leave to present to the House a petition signed by a number of my constituents, which represents the view of many more who did not have the opportunity to sign it.
  The petition states:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Hon. Members of the House of Commons should bear in mind, that according to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "The Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by Society and the State." We ask that they should therefore urge the Home Secretary that he should recommend to the House that parents must be given statutory rights to be consulted before any contraceptive drugs or devices be given to their daughters whilst they are under 16: thus enabling parents to take whatever actions they think necessary to protect their daughters from early and unlawful sexual relationships, and the criminal actions of the males involved.
  I strongly support the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I beg leave to present a petition from a number of my constituents on the same subject as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton.) They draw attention to the part of the petition which states:
  Girls need special protection, as the future mothers in society, and must be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means to enable them to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg leave to present a petition similar to those presented by the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), on behalf of my constituent Mrs. N. M. M. Ashcroft of 18, Freshfields Drive, Longbarn, Padgate, Warrington, and 2,585 petitioners.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg leave to' present a petition from the residents of Alnwick and Amble on the same subject as the petitions presented by the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Warrington, North (Mr.Hoyle) — contraceptive advice and abortions for girls under 16.
  Although not in identical terms, it prays
  that your Honourable House will legislate to give parents or legal guardians the statutory right to be informed of and give consent to all medication for their children under 16 years of age.
  I welcome the fact that yesterday the Government undertook to reconsider this matter. I trust they will recognise that the root of the petition lies in the deep concern that parental responsibility and guidance should be seen to have its proper place in helping girls under 16 who find themselves in difficulty. I hope the Government will understand that parental responsibility is of the utmost importance and, therefore, take account of the serious concern that has been expressed.
  To lie upon the Table.

Travelling People
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
10.23 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting my subject for the Adjournment debate, and to the House for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Government's consultative paper on the accommodation needs of long-distance and regional travellers, particularly with regard to my constituency of Salisbury. The problem is a national one, and many hon. Members have first-hand knowledge of the disturbance caused to their constituents by travellers and the problems that these members of our society pose to our local authority and law enforcement agencies.
In the consultation paper of February 1982, the Department of the Environment said that it was of increasing concern to the Government that something should be done to alleviate the current curcumstances in which sudden, often large-scale, incursions of long-distance and regional travellers cause distress to nearby house dwellers and residents and exceptional expense to local authorities and increases the isolation of travellers and the disregard they feel towards society in general.
The research that has so far been done concentrates on the groups of Irish gipsies who migrated here during the 1950s and 1960s when economic conditions in Ireland were relatively poor. Often, these easily recognisable groups are at odds with their English gipsy counterparts. There is no doubt that over the centuries gipsies in Europe have been unjustifiably and sometimes cruelly persecuted, and at least within these islands we have begun to come to terms with this minority group, and they with us.
Where the consultative paper is less useful is in its consideration of other travellers who are not usually classified as traditional gipsies. However, the paper ends by saying that if a solution is to be found to this most pressing problem action will be needed upon the following lines. It will be necessary to identify and provide stopping places or transit sites that may include seasonal car parks or wasteland that is temporarily out of use. Encouragement and assistance should be given to travellers purchasing and maintaining sites for their own use and there should be a fostering of more co-operation and understanding among travellers, local authorities and the public. At the moment, mutual suspicion prevails. That is certainly our local evidence in Wiltshire.
When I wrote asking for this debate I was in the happy position of knowing that the community in south Wiltshire was of one mind on this issue and that I had the strong support of other hon. Members in raising this matter tonight. I particularly mention the support from the Bishop of Salisbury's director of the diocesan council for social responsibility, and, I am pleased to to be able to say, the support of the local branch of the Post Office Engineering Union.
We are facing a new phenomenon that needs new thinking. For ten years, the people of Salisbury lived with squatters in the ancient drove roads near the city, who have occupied the land illegally, but generally peacefully, and who have invited the title of "new age gipsies". We have also had to live with the Stonehenge festival, which takes
510
place each year around the solstice and now attracts 30,000 people who are illegally squatting on land owned by the National Trust.
Over the years, all the authorities involved have shown considerable good will and have bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of those who want to drop out of 20th century life. I pay a tribute to the patience and professionalism of successive Ministers at the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, to Wiltshire county council and Salisbury district council, and, above all, to the patience of the Wiltshire constabulary.
All the statutory authorities have pursued this issue to the limit, but since August, all the patient good work and trust that have been built up have been destroyed by a sudden influx of new squatters. At least 200 nomads are squatting illegally on private land outside Salisbury. They claim that there may be 1,000 of them by Christmas. Their lawlessness is self-confessed, as is their anarchy. Newspaper reports have claimed that they are armed with hand grenades, and they certainly possess shotguns. I must disclaim the words put into my mouth by the News of the World. I have no evidence of any terrorism contemplated by the people there. However, I have been physically threatened by them and an army helicopter is alleged to have been attacked.
Local residents are denied enjoyment of their ancient rights of way, farmers have been forced to abandon the crops in the fields, and timber is being cut from Forestry Commission plantations. The National Farmers Union has taken up the case of its members locally, and in a recent letter to me it claims that a number of sheep had been killed and that the police had advised the farmers to shift the livestock to the other end of the farms involved, and not to return them. The police have given whatever protection they can and have been in the area all day. When the trouble was at its height, they called at the farms every hour during darkness to protect the farmers, their families and livestock. The NFU alleged instances where the police had to back down when trying to administer the law because of the numbers confronting them. The local secretary of the NFU wrote that he would never have thought it possible for that to happen in England.
I want to quote a short extract from the transcript of a TV South "Coast to Coast" programme that was broadcast recently. The interviewer asked the squatters what they would do if someone came to try to move them out. The interviewer said:
"What people are concerned about is that you would use the axes and the guns that they talk about and see."
Man A replied:
"The first man, policeman, soldier or civilian, that ever walks through my space, and invades my privacy without asking my permission, I personally would get up and I would bust him right between the two eyes — and I would not worry about the consequences."
Even my defeated chief opponent at the general election spoke to me about the matter last Saturday. He said that, in his view, a pall of gloom now hung over the city as a result of the presence of these people in their encampment and in the city itself, where their abusive language and anti-social ways are felt by many to be threatening, and are certainly disturbing.
The county council has taken its responsibilities very seriously and has exercised its highway powers, but that merely moves the problem along the road, and does not in any way present a real solution. Even exercising highway powers could produce a pitched battle, which is

511
of course to be avoided. Indeed, the effect of exercising highway powers is to force the illegal squatters on to private land. There is no doubt that the owners of the farmland affected are doing a public service, both in their patience in allowing us time to sort out the problem, and because of the financial consequences of any High Court action which, in civilian law, would mean that the cost fell on them. If the law can protect the community only by resort to private pockets, the law should be changed.
It is the opinion of the Wiltshire county secretary and solicitor that the behaviour and nature of the people who are now unlawfully encamped, if press reports are to be believed, seem to be criminal. He says that they certainly do not appear to be gipsies "resorting to the area", nor involuntarily homeless people belonging to the area. The county secretary said that while further High Court orders and action could, in theory, move them on, that would merely move the problem to another place at considerable cost. He says that the police view is that they would probably have to summon substantial reinforcements to enable the under-sheriff to enforce a High Court order without being injured, and that the order might be made a mockery of by immediate return to occupation of the same stretch of highway, or standing by on close adjoining land, while the under-sheriff walked the empty highway. That, in fact, has now happened. Wiltshire county council has reservations about the effectiveness of further court proceedings, feeling that the solution does not lie with it to a problem which is part of a much wider national social problem.
The district council, too, has left no stone unturned. The chief executive of Salisbury district council has written that it might be appropriate to invoke planning legislation. However, he complained that that would be impracticable and very lengthy to apply. The reason is that the police have advised against the council making any contact with the people on the land, because the safety of the council's officers cannot be guaranteed. Acceptance of the police advice would prevent the service of enforcement notices—the first step in the institution of enforcement proceedings. Although the enforcement notice could be served on the landowner, the law does not require a person to hazard himself in order to comply with legal requirements.
The chief executive also points out that, quite apart from the special problem of enforcement arising from the police advice, the planning provisions on enforcement can be unsatisfactory because of the great length of time involved and because the occupiers—who, in any event, are trespassers — would have no compunction about moving to another site nearby. The whole procedure would then have to start again in relation to the new site.
Finally, the chief executive says that the occupiers of the adjoining caravan site and the residents of the nearby village of Coombe Bissett have suffered serious detriment because of the occupation of the land in question, and that they expect that the due process of law enforcement should operate, but the enforcement provisions are ineffective because the people concerned are determined to ignore or flout the law.
I was pleased to receive a letter on Monday from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. His good news was that the Government would shortly announce their conclusions on the need for changes in the law in this respect.
512
During the debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill on Monday of this week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said:
"The policing of this country is going through a period of rapid change. Every hon. Member who is in touch with his police force and police authority will confirm that. The police are responding in many different ways to public anxiety about the crime figures and to much more general changes in society. Recruitment is up, the quality of recruits is high, management and training are being reformed and modem equipment is being introduced.
However, every police officer worth his salt knows that these necessary changes will not fully succeed without the unwritten contract of mutual help and understanding between police and public".—[Official Report, 7 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 102.]
We know that there is no point in endangering the police in enforcing the law if the law will immediately be broken again. I have with some reluctance come to the conclusion that there may be a sensible case for the use of troops against armed lawbreakers. However, I am reassured that Wiltshire constabulary can cope with the problem in hand.
The people of Salisbury are asking whether the law can be enforced. If it cannot, why not? The law is a living thing and must surely change to met the changing needs of society. Every avenue that has been explored leads back to the door of the Government and I believe that changes in the law in this area are long overdue.
It is said that the criminal law is adequate as it stands. Some say that the law of trespass should be changed to make trespass on non-residential property a criminal offence. Some say that the law should be amended to create a category of public nuisance leading to the exclusion of people or a group of people from an area. The only thing that we know for sure is that in Wiltshire everything has been tried.
Above all, the rule of law must be seen to apply to all the people all the time. If the Government fail to act now, we will see an unwelcome increase in the trail of disorder and unhappiness spreading across the country from Haverfordwest and Brecon through Glastonbury to Stonehenge, Greenham Common, Norwich and Leicester, to Cambridgeshire, Sussex and Kent.
In their consultation paper, the Government have responded positively to the social problem which they know we face. We live in an open, tolerant and democratic society and neither the people of Salisbury nor the Government would wish to restrict the liberty of the individual to live his own life, so long as he does not intimidate the majority by conspiring in groups to flout the law and thereby impinge upon the freedom and rights of his neighbour and, indeed, of his children. We must not forget the children of those who are living this alternative life.
Last summer, at the Stonehenge free festival, we witnessed the exploitation of children in connection with drug trafficking and there was the death of a child. It is said that the parents among those who travel in this new way have a great regard for the well-being of their children, but we should not forget that we are signatories to the United Nations declaration on the rights of children, which says:
"The child shall enjoy special protection, shall be given opportunities and facilities by law and by other means to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity."
Last summer, there were some 400 children at the Stonehenge free festival who, so I was told by those taking

513
part, had never been to school. How many children of the squatters around the country are being deprived of their birthright of education?
I urge the Government with all the authority at my command—with the authority of the people of Salisbury and south Wiltshire—to act on this matter with great urgency in the interests of the whole nation. Indeed, let it never be said that this Government, through lack of determination, presided over the rapid development of an alternative society, an alternative nation, when our declared objective, so frail yet so prized, must be one nation.
10.40 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has given a graphic description of a state of affairs which is causing real and understandable distress to his constituents. He came to see me a few days ago and what he told me then and what he told the House tonight can leave no one in any doubt of the anxieties and difficulties caused by what has been happening in his constituency.
Mr. David Ashby rose——
Mr. Hurd: I will not give way, because I must get on.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, this problem goes well beyond his constituency, and I am glad of the opportunity to give the House a summary of the information that we have about this collection of groups and to say what the police forces in different parts of the south and east of England have been doing to deal with the sort of problems that my hon. Friend mentioned.
First, two important general points that are not always as clearly understood as they should be. Under our system of policing, it is not for the Home Office or Ministers to direct chief officers of police how to carry out their duties as heads of the different police forces. That is for them and it is not a matter in which the Home Secretary can or does intervene.
Secondly, police forces and chief officers must administer the law as it stands and work out how best to do that in their areas in the light of their situations. There is one overriding principle, which my hon. Friend stated correctly: no citizen and no corner of the kingdom is outside the law or exempt from its enforcement. The timing and nature of that enforcement must depend on chief officers, who have a responsibility for preserving the Queen's peace as well as for dealing with infringements of the law. They cannot ignore either of those, and sometimes the responsibility to keep the peace will affect their tactical decisions on how to enforce the law.
The Peace Convoy is a title that covers a loose coalition of wandering groups which come together during the summer, retain separate identities and tend to disperse for the winter to separate camps. Their numbers fluctuate, but the total is probably about 600. They travel around the southern part of the country in a fleet of about 120 buses, lorries and other vehicles, many of which are dilapidated, to say the least.
Although these groups occasionally call themselves the Peace Convoy, I do not beleive that they have any genuine connection with any political cause. Their interests seem to be firmly focussed on the free festivals that are held
514
from time to time at various sites in southern England and Wales, one of the biggest of which—unfortunately for my hon. Friend — is that held in June at Stonehenge. There is no doubt that, although there are a great many people at the Stonehenge festival who do not belong to the Peace Convoy, the presence of the Peace Convoy at the festival this year enormously complicated and worsened the problems that in any case exist because of the festival.
At the end of June, the convoy left Wiltshire and travelled to Inglestone common, near Chipping Sodbury, where it stayed for three weeks. Avon and Somerset police, aware of reports that drug-taking was common at the encampment and of local concern about the activities of convoy members, adopted a strategy of containment. Many searches were made of people entering and leaving the site and a large number of these resulted in arrests for drug offences. Several unpleasant and potentially violent incidents occurred when police officers visited the site on various occasions to pursue inquiries about specific incidents. These incidents led the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset to judge that his policy on containment was correct and that any attempt to go further—for example, by maintaining a permanent police presence on the site—would produce the wrong result.
On 22 July of this year the convoy left Inglestone common and travelled to the Glastonbury green gathering, near Shepton Mallet, where, as at Stonehenge, the gathering attracted large crowds, among whom the members of the convoy were a minority. It passed off without serious incident and after the gathering the convoy, travelling in several different groups, moved to East Anglia for some weeks. A large group arrived in Norwich on 8 August and camped on land near the university of East Anglia.
The chief constable of Norfolk has told us that his decision to adopt a similar policy of containment was influenced by the need to assure the residents of Norwich that they would not be inconvenienced by the convoy's presence. During the convoy's two-week stay in Norwich, the most serious incident was one in which a parked car was stoned. Again, large numbers of searches were carried out on the periphery of the camp, a substantial proportion of which resulted in arrests for drug offences. After two weeks the university authorities obtained an injunction requiring the convoy to leave their land and the police planned a large operation to enforce the injunction, should that prove necessary, but the convoy left the site and moved a few miles to the village of Lyng. On 4 September the group left Norfolk altogether and, as my hon. Friend has told the House, is now back in Wiltshire.
I have no doubt, after what my hon. Friend has said, and from information from other hon. Friends and from the police, that the group is thoroughly undesirable and in some respects vicious. Members of the convoy have committed various criminal offences, including road traffic and drugs offences, which have been dealt with by the police as has been considered necessary.
My hon. Friend dealt to some extent with the problem of trespass. I would not quarrel with his analysis. Squatters on private farmland are committing the tort of trespass. In this country, trespass on land has traditionally been a matter for the civil rather than the criminal law. The main reason for that is that trespass in itself is not usually regarded as inherently deserving of criminal sanctions. If it is accompanied by violent or criminal acts, that is another matter, and there is a range of criminal offences

515
with which those responsible could be charged. The mere entry to or remaining on someone's land, however, constitutes a tort at civil law.
Mr. Ashby: The private landowner, in such circumstances, is forced to go to law and pay for the eviction of people who represent a public nuisance. That is the fundamental problem.
Mr. Hurd: I shall analyse the present situation before considering possible remedies.
As both my hon. Friends have said, someone who considers that a trespasser has interfered with his enjoyment of his property can seek a court order for possession. He does not have to prove damage, and the trifling nature of the trespass is no defence. To enforce a court order the bailiffs are entitled to remove the trespassers, by force if need be, and if any trouble is envisaged the bailiffs will normally seek the help of the police, who will naturally be concerned to avoid breaches of the peace and who are empowered to act to prevent them.
I hope that there is no risk of misunderstanding about the ability of the police to help in such situations. The decision on how to respond in a particular instance is an operational one for the police. I understand from the chief constable of Wiltshire that he would, as usual, be willing to help in the execution of an order in this case should he be so requested.
My hon. Friend referred to the review of the law of trespass which, as he rightly said, my right hon. Friend is now conducting. We shall shortly announce our conclusions, but, in order to avoid excessive expections, I must say that the review is confined to trespass on residential premises, because it arose from circumstances quite different from those that my hon. Friend has described. To make all trespass on private land a criminal offence would be a very difficult step. The concept of public nuisance has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury and Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). I should like to consider that further. If either of them should care to develop their thoughts into a more concrete proposal, we would certainly consider it.
I come to the possible remedies in hand, such as mutual aid. Obviously, the Wiltshire police or other police forces in those circumstances may need speedy help from neighbouring police forces. That is available and can be obtained. As this problem runs across the south and east
516
of Britain and is not confined to any one police force area, it was quickly recognised among chief officers that co-operation between the police forces would be valuable. Standing arrangements have, therefore, been made for the sharing of information and intelligence that came to light from the convoy's activities. I believe that such cooperation will be increasingly important.
There are two other remedies in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that I should like, with your permission Mr. Deputy Speaker, to mention as they are relevant to the argument. The first concerns the problem of people who have no discernible home address and who consequently may be in a position to flout the law. If they refuse to give a satisfactory address for service of a summons, it is impossible under the present law for offences that do not carry a power of arrest to be enforced. I think in particular of traffic offences, which are part —but only part—of the problem. Clause 22 of the police and Criminal Evidence Bill will provide that where a police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence has been committed or attempted, he can arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons would be impracticable or inappropriate. Similarly, as the stop and search power in the new Bill would cover prohibited articles such as offensive weapons as well as stolen goods right across the country, it could be of help to the police in enforcing the law against those people.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury knows, the Department of the Environment has particular responsibility for Stonehenge. That Department and officials from my Department are considering how they can best help those concerned in the local authorities and districts to cope with the problems caused by those festivals. In conclusion, I am not in the least complacent about this issue, or about the remedies that I have described. I am sure that we shall, naturally, hear more about this matter from my hon. Friends. It is not illegal to travel about this country in groups, and any effort to distinguish in law between pleasant and unpleasant groups would be very difficult. Any policy that simply has the effect of moving unpleasant groups from one place to another is of rather limited value. However, the Home Office will do whatever it can to encourage and advise the police forces that have to wrestle with this formidable problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o' clock.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Dundee—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lords following took and subscribed the Oath or made the solemn Affirmation:
Edward Henry Berkeley, Viscount Portman;
Alexander David Frederick, Lord Lloyd.

Insolvency: Wrongful Trading
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept the view of the Cork Committee on Insolvency Law and Practice that its proposals on "wrongful trading" are of the greatest importance and should be implemented as a matter of urgent necessity.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the value of the Insolvency Law Review Committee's wrongful trading proposals. These proposals, however, are only part of the solution to the problem of delinquent and irresponsible directors. It is the Government's view that such an important subject should not be dealt with piecemeal but should wait for the insolvency law reform legislation on which the Department of Trade and Industry expects to issue a White Paper early in the New Year.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if I might pursue the Minister a little more on this question of urgency, does he recall that in another place in July and August the Minister for Consumer Affairs gave two Written Answers stating that he thought that there were certain abuses in this area of wrongful trading which required urgent attention? Does he also recall that the Minister went on to say that he was considering taking up the matter of the Cork recommendation for the introduction of civil liability in these matters? Finally, bearing that background in mind, might I ask the noble Lord whether he has any views on Chapter 44 of the Cork Report which in paragraph 1806 contains a draft clause on this matter, and whether the Government would consider that that might be dealt with separately?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise that both the Cork Report and the noble Baroness, very rightly, are extremely concerned particularly about the wrongful
954
trading question. I think that we must bear in mind that the recommendations of the report which might appear to be most suited for early treatment—including this one—are inter-related and their effects are often interdependent. We have tried to give urgent attention to the report which, after all, came out only last year. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave an undertaking that there will be a White Paper and legislation to follow as soon as possible. We intend to try to stick to that.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord wishes to be helpful, but might I ask him if he is aware that the experts in the consumer organisations—and there are some good experts among them—consider that this particular matter could be dealt with separately instead of waiting for the whole of the Cork Report? Might I ask him something arising from last week? If he refers to the Official Report of this House for last Thursday he will note that I asked whether we could be told what aspects of the Cork Report the White Paper which was promised early in the new year would cover. I was not able to be given an answer. Could the noble Lord write to me about that so that the matter can be cleared up?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we ought to try to be more helpful to the noble Baroness. I must admit that I am not in a position today on the Floor of the House to be more helpful because the report is such an enormous one and I do not think that we yet genuinely know its exact scope. But I should like to write to the noble Baroness and try to help over that matter. On the first point which the noble Baroness raises, all that I can say is that, although there may be those very well versed in these matters who believe that one could pull out certain aspects of the report which, I agree, need to be looked at with as much urgency as possible, I think that I really must rest on my answer to the first supplementary question—which is that one finds that those recommendations which might be most suitable for early treatment are inter-related and their effects are interdependent.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I could not hope to equal the persistence of the noble Baroness who has just spoken; but may I press the noble Lord the Minister on one aspect? Will he agree that, because of the complexity of this report, it is unlikely that legislation on insolvency matter will take place at anything like an early date following on the White Paper because of the number of consultations that will have to be involved? Will he not agree therefore that this question of wrongful trading which is so much hurting our little people in commerce might be legislated upon separately and then to carry that through into any other legislation which may be enacted a very long time afterwards?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise the expertise of the noble Lord and his concern in this matter; but I think that even he, knowing a great deal more than I know, would wish to see what is in the White Paper—which ought to be available in the very near future—before reaching any conclusions on that supplementary question.

Urban Programme: Funds
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the total level of resources devoted to the Urban Programme during the current financial year.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, for the year 1983–84, £348 million was provided for the Urban Programme in England, £35 million in Scotland and £17 million in Wales—a total of £400 million.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, perhaps I may say how glad I am to hear the Government statement along these lines, because waste of land in this connection would be a pity. May I ask whether anything is being done in Scotland in this particular regard?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I said in the Answer a moment ago that £35 million of the £400 million was applicable to Scotland.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the progress of the urban development programme?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the urban development grants scheme, to which I presume my noble friend refers, is proving a very great success. Indeed, only today I am announcing a further three schemes being approved in Wolverhampton, Coventry and Nottingham; and the overall total in this respect now amounts to over £300 million, of which only slightly over £60 million comes from the public sector. The remainder comes from the private sector.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is no truth in the rumour that the urban aid programme is likely to be reduced in the near future?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, clearly I cannot say what the amount of next year's urban programme funds will be, but I think I can assuage the concern of the noble Baroness if she is relying upon a particular newspaper report. I gladly tell her that that report, like a number of others very recently, is in some kind of phantasy land.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, without having asked the question I was going to ask, I am grateful to the Minister for the answer he has just given.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the city centre programmes are included in the urban renewal programme, especially in regard to the restoration of historic buildings?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the Urban Programme funds can be applied to purposes of the kind to which my noble friend refers. However, there are other sources for that kind of restoration. But, certainly, when we receive applications for that purpose within a particular Urban Programme we look at them very carefully and, of course, are sympathetic to them.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether improvement grants will be freely available under the Urban Programme? Because there was a statement recently that money for local authorities' improvement grants was going to be cut back severely.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, improvement grants as such do not form part of the Urban Programme; that is a separate matter entirely. I think the noble Baroness is referring to general improvement grants, which were 75 per cent. with an increase to 90 per cent. for a time, and where the indication is that they will again come back to 75 per cent. That really is not part of the Urban Programme.

Privatisation
3.12 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further steps of denationalisation they propose to take during this Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, our intention is that British Telecom, Rolls-Royce, British Airways, BGC's former offshore oil interests (Enterprise Oil Ltd.), substantial parts of British Steel, of British Shipbuilders and of British Leyland, and as many as possible of Britain's airports, will become private sector companies. We also aim to introduce substanial private capital into the National Bus Company. The Wytch Farm oilfield sale is expected to be completed this financial year. Other possibilities are under consideration
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend understand how pleased we on this side of the House are to hear that this very ambitious programme is contemplated—and noble Lords in other parts of the House as well? Could he note that when these operations are undertaken every effort is made to involve those who are working in the industries concerned? Is it not a fact that the National Freight Corporation, where management and workpeople were all concerned and bought shares, is likely not just to break even, as it did last year, but to make profits of about £5 million this year? Is it not also true that nationalisation does not in fact guarantee the same jobs to the same people? There were very large cuts in the nationalised industries of gas and electricity in the years before this Government came to power.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. It has been, and will continue to be, the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage shareholdings by employees. This

957
is a very valuable feature of privatisation. It is perfectly true, as he says, that the National Freight Corporation is likely to make a good profit of about £5 million this year, while last year it barely broke even. Other companies which have been returned to the private sector have also done very well.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, if the private sector is that much more clever at running industry than the public servants, why is it that they are given only the easier and profitable sectors to administer? Why do they not have a go at the more difficult companies within the public sector? May I ask the noble Lord, in respect of British Airways, bearing in mind the report of the Public Accounts Committee on British Aerospace: can he really justify putting £1,000 million of taxpayers' money into British Airways to make it marketable?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion that all the nationalised industries should be privatised whether or not they are currently profitable. We shall certainly bear in mind his wholehearted support in this matter when we come to consider individual projects. So far as British Airways are concerned, the precise nature and form of privatisation has still to be settled. This obviously includes the question of the capitalisation of the company.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, with respect, I admire the facility of the noble Lord's answer, but would he please answer the first part of my question and tell me why he does not give the difficult ones to private entrepreneurs?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I was very clear and specific in my reply. There are a number of the nationalised industries which have gone through very difficult times. Many of them have made large losses; they have been over-manned; they have been a severe drain upon the taxpayer. Many of these things need to be put right, and we have devoted a great deal of effort towards putting them right. When they are put right these industries will, we hope, be privatised, and we shall thus ensure their continued successful operation.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that any list which contains British Shipbuilders can hardly be said to contain only the easy ones?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comment, which I shall, of course, bear in mind.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, but is it not the case that to pick out only the profitable—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jacques: My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind two things? First of all, would he bear in mind that some of these undertakings that were nationalised were only nationalised when private ownership failed? Examples of this are British Leyland and Rolls-Royce. Secondly, would the Minister bear in mind that there
958
are other policies—policies far more important than ownership—which are necessary in this country?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, if the noble Lord will cast his mind back he will remember that the reasons for nationalising industries were not by any means confined to the fact that the industries in question were making losses. I would suggest that he reads some of the policy documents of the Labour Party, however horrifying they may be.
Noble Lords: My Lords—
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would the Government consider leaving the nuclear defence complex under the state and diverting the conventional forces to private ownership?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. There was so much background noise as he began to ask his question that, unfortunately, I lost his introduction to it. I am sure, however, that he has made a valuable point, as he always does.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would the Minister advise the House on the timing of these issues, to ensure that in the carrying out of such an ambitious programme the Government will not overload the market with new issues, in order to ensure that the taxpayer gets the maximum advantage in the presentation of these companies for privatisation?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has made a very important point, and it is one which we keep in mind all the time. The programming of issues of this sort requires great skill and a proper regard to market conditions at the time. It is our objective, as he himself says, to ensure that the Government receive a fair and proper price.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree, when he makes recommendations to noble Lords on this side of the House to cast their minds back to some aspects of nationalisation, that the last time Rolls-Royce was nationalised it was an emergency measure of the Tory Government of the day? Is that not correct? Secondly, is it not also true that many of our great publicly owned industries have excellent relations with sectors of private industry and that together they make very good teams in seeing that the economy of Britain is well maintained? One can hardly mention a publicly owned industry which does not have very close relations with other aspects of industry which are privately owned.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is entirely right in saying that close relations ought to exist between public sector and private sector companies, and very often they work together very well. I do not want to go into the specific history of Rolls-Royce, about which a great deal could be said and which throws no credit on the position and policies of certain prominent Members of the Labour Party who are no longer as prominent as they were then. But there may be circumstances where a company needs rescuing and this was so in the case of

959
Rolls-Royce. The important thing now is to ensure that the part of that company which remains in the public sector—and the noble Lord will remember that part of it was returned to the private sector shortly afterwards—is run properly and efficiently and can therefore appropriately be returned to the private sector.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider placing the considerable irony which he has now put at the disposal of the national interest back again into private interest and privatising it for the general benefit of this House?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am always most grateful to the noble Lord for his compliments, and I can assure him that my abilities remain at the service of the Government as long as it is the wish of the Government to employ them.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House how many millions of public money have been put into nationalised industries to pay for redundancies and other factors, in order to make them more attractive for piratisation? For instance, can he say whether the increase in gas prices is an attempt to make the industry much more profitable and therefore more attractive to the private sector? Will he give some assurances—for example, in the case of British Telecom—that many of the socially necessary services which do not make a profit, such as the presence of telephone facilities in rural areas, will still continue despite the piratisation of the public sector?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, perhaps the most relevant figure to give him is that since 1945, and revalued at current prices, approximately £45,000 million of public money has gone into the nationalised industries, most of which has been lost. This is the kind of thing that we wish to bring to an end. To turn to British Telecom, the noble Lord will no doubt have read the draft licence which has now been published and which deals in detail with the measures which British Telecom are required to abide by for the preservation of services in rural areas.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that the sarcasm and discourtesy with which he has answered many of the questions put to him this afternoon is not in accordance with the normal traditions of this House?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have in fact, in reply to every question, given a strictly factual answer. The fact that certain noble Lords may not like to look the facts straight in the face is not a matter on which I would wish to comment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister remember a number of occasions when I and other Members on this side of the House made it quite clear that we believe in a mixed economy? Will the Minister say whether the Government believe in a mixed economy and where they draw the limits of their polemical attack upon public ownership?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we have never made polemical attacks on public ownership. Our objective is to ensure that these industries are run for the greater benefit of the people who work in them, of consumers and of the general public at large and, in the main, they can be run better, more efficiently and more competitively in the private sector than in the public sector.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether it will continue to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to draw no distinction between the finance which will be coming into the Treasury from the sale of these assets and the ordinary revenue of the country which is naturally used for consumption purposes, such as public services and so on? Will that continue to be the policy of the Government, and if it does so continue, will not the case be at the end of the Government's period of office that the country will simply be the poorer for the lack of all these national assets?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, receipts from the sale of assets are separately identified in the national accounts so that it can be seen exactly what has been received. Regarding the second part of his question, it is not the case that all revenue is spent for current purposes only. On the contrary, a large amount of revenue is spent on capital projects. For example, many billions of pounds a year are spent on the capital programmes of the nationalised industries, and of course there are large capital projects in other areas of Government.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is that not a completely misleading answer? The noble Lord the Minister knows that it has always been the case that, out of the proceeds which the Government collect, a number of items of expenditure have been incurred which could be classified partly as capital and partly as revenue, and it has never been the practice to attempt to distinguish. Is it not the case that there is a great deal of capital loss going on in the form of depreciation which is never recorded in the capital account and which offsets what the Minister has been saying? Am I not right therefore in saying that a clear distinction ought to be drawn when the country is embarking on a totally new policy of selling its birthright? The conclusion will be—but I do not need to finish it.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is getting rather emotional and he is mixing up his politics with his accountancy. The first part of his exposition merely confirms what I was saying. So far as the rest of his point is concerned, the Government spend every year a large amount of money on capital account and it is quite wrong to say that the birthright of the nation is being sold.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not alone in my view that the appointment of himself to the Government by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is one of the best examples of her good taste and judgment?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he says.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to clarify the remarks which he made earlier, that certain members of the Labour Party were in some way involved in the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that was not the point that I had made. The point that I had made was that certain policies which had been followed did in fact lead to a situation in which Rolls-Royce went bankrupt and the noble Lord will find that this is amply evidenced.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to read again the nature of his answers to the House today, which seem to have shown a progress from irony to sarcasm to positive rudeness to the noble Lord who has just spoken. We admire greatly the noble Lord's intellectual capacity, but let him consider how he is dealing with the House.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I reject entirely the claims made by the noble Lord—the noble and learned Lord.
A noble Lord: The noble and learned Lord.
Lord Cockfield: I said "the noble and learned Lord" before the noble Lord chose to try to correct me. I simply do not accept the criticisms which the noble and learned Lord makes.
Lord George-Brown: But, my Lords, the noble Lord never did accept any criticisms. May I ask the Minister to make it quite clear that he advised me about Rolls-Royce when I was the economics Minister. If the thing went wrong it was because I accepted the noble Lord's advice.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am happy to say that I have never advised the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, either on that or, indeed, on any other matter. The only occasion that I remember meeting him in that sort of capacity was when he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary——
Lord George-Brown: That is right.
Lord Cockfield:—to the late Sir Stafford Cripps.
Lord George-Brown: I never was. The noble Lord has even got that wrong.
Lord Cockfield: In that event, I withdraw the compliment that I paid to the noble Lord.

Abortion Act 1967: Proposed Amendment
3.32 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the call by the Church of England
962
General Synod, supported by a majority of 256 to 2, for a Government-sponsored Bill to amend the 1967 Abortion Act to restrict the number of abortions.
The Parliamentry Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Government respect the conviction which underlies the vote of the General Synod. We believe, however, that abortion is a subject on which Parliament should be free to vote according to individual consciences. Accordingly, the Government will continue to leave possible changes in the law on abortion to individual initiatives.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer, it seems to me to be disappointing that the Government are taking a back seat. Do the Government fully appreciate that the reason why the vast majority of Christians—and I believe I can say Christians of every denomination—feel so strongly about the present situation is because they believe that the unborn children whose lives are being taken are persons created by God and known by Him and entitled to our protection? Can the Minister say whether the Government see it as their duty to protect life as including or excluding the unborn child?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the Government consider that this is very much a matter for individual consciences. However, the noble Lord spoke about the numbers of people in the General Synod of the Church of England who voted for it. He may like to be aware that of the 550 or so members of Synod who could have voted, only 272 did, leaving 278 who did not even attend.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the principal aim of the 1967 Act was to ensure that more pregnancies are terminated under controlled, aseptic and safe conditions, with consequently fewer abortions, and preferably no abortions, being performed illegally under very dangerous conditions indeed? Would the noble Lord further agree that the most satisfactory way of avoiding unwanted pregnancies is to provide readily available family planning services and that any attempt to privatise the family planning service, or otherwise to remove it from the National Health Service, could have very dangerous consequences indeed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree entirely with the first point which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made. So far as his second supplementary is concerned, yes, there is scope for both the private sector and the public sector.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, of the 270 people who voted in Synod for this motion, can the Minister say how many were women?
Lord Glenarthur: Not without notice, my Lords.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the 1967 Act was carried through this House every kind of assurance was given that there

963
would not be abortion on demand? Is the Minister further aware that in many cases abortion on demand is now available? In other words, the Act has been completely abused.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I reject what the noble Earl says. It is not the case that the Act is being widely abused. The statistics which come to the department would verify that fact.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is it not a little strange that the Government of this country, which is nominally, at least, still a Christian country, should totally reject the practically unanimous view of Synod?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, the vote in Synod was 256 for, two against, with 14 abstentions. A further 278 did not vote. I think that answers the noble Lord's supplementary.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, if this is to be a question of numbers, would the noble Lord the Minister, whom I congratulate on the answers he has given today, care to look at other opinion polls and expressions of opinion from sources other than the General Synod of the Church of England, including in particular the women of this country?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, one of the chief difficulties about dealing with a matter like this is that it is an extremely emotional one. All noble Lords will have their own personal views. That is why the Government maintain the view that it is best to leave this matter to individual conscience. They believe that the Abortion Act 1967 was a great improvement on what existed hitherto, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, explained so well just now.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that in any assembly not all the members are always in the house in order to vote, that the General Synod of the Church of England is not famed for being unanimous in its votes and that in fact this was rather a rare vote, with considerable support for this particular motion being given right across the membership of the house? Would not the noble Lord also agree that it is very difficult for this matter to be raised as a Private Member's Bill with any chance of it being looked at seriously?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I accept what the right reverend Prelate says about the attendance at any one time of people given any particular opportunity to vote, but I cannot promise that the Government could give any time for such a Bill. In any case, that would be a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when Synod carried by 256 votes to two the motion that was before them, can the Minister tell us whether the bishops had put the whips on? Or was it a free vote?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that might be a question better addressed to the right reverend Prelate on my left.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are prepared to look at the specific question of late abortions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the question of abortions is something which the Government certainly keep under review. So far as late abortions specifically are concerned, if the noble Lord would like to elucidate the point further at a later date, or write to me, perhaps I could take an interest in the matter, because I have a certain responsibility towards it. But I have no other facts to put in front of the noble Lord today.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, are the Government aware that more lives have been terminated under the Abortion Act than were lost in two world wars?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, without notice I simply do not know the answer to that question.

Private Notice Questions
3.38 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I rise under Standing Order No. 32, which deals with Private Notice Questions and, inter alia, the procedure when such a Question is disallowed. The procedure provides that the Lord concerned may raise the matter at this time in your Lordships' House. In order to do so I must, as provided under the standing order, tell your Lordships what the Question was and give my reasons for believing that it should be allowed. The Question was as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether as an opinion poll has shown that 94 per cent. of the British people want dual key control of cruise missiles they will hold up deployment until such an agreement is reached."
As I understand it, the main reason why the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has decided that this is not a Question which should be asked in this way is because this is not an emergency in the sense that an emergency is understood in this context.
This would be true if what I was raising was merely the question of an opinion poll, but the opinion poll is one which deals with a matter which is in itself an emergency. If this Question cannot be asked before the missiles are deployed, then single key control, under direct American physical influence and control, will be established. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a Question which the Government should be asked and which they should reply to before the missiles themselves are deployed. As there is apparently no opportunity to put this Question down on the Order Paper in the ordinary way because the Order Paper is full, I submit to your Lordships that the Question ought to be allowed, that the Question should be put, and that it should be answered by the Government today.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, naturally I gave very careful consideration to the Private Notice Question submitted to me by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. Naturally, I looked to see what had happened in the past. I understand that it is for the Leader of the House

965
to decide in the first instance whether the Question is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply. I am, of course, in the hands of the House on this matter, but it does seem to me to be perfectly clear that the noble Lord's Question is not an appropriate one for the procedure of a Private Notice Question. I entirely accept that the matter he is discussing is an important matter for this country; but I did not feel that the basis on which he founded his Question was an appropriate one for the procedure of a Private Notice Question. That was my reasoning, having given the matter very careful consideration.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, this matter is one upon which one is strongly tempted to divide the House because of the massive support—the quite unprecedented support—for the view that the British Government and their representatives should have a physical hand on their own fate in the case of cruise missiles. This is not a question that is of the same order as other questions; it is one that moves people throughout the country and on all sides of the House. Therefore, one is tempted to divide the House.
However, I am hopeful, knowing that the House is conscious of the importance of this matter, that some way will be found by the Government of giving the House an opportunity to debate this single issue—the issue of physical dual key control—before they announce the actual presence of the missile. In the hope and belief that the Government will do that, I will refrain from dividing the House this afternoon.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, while I much appreciate that which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said and his decision not to divide the House, it would be open to me, as he will appreciate, to debate the reasons for my decision. I felt that it would not be in the best interests of the House to do so, unless very pressed. But if I were to promise that there would be an immediate or very quick opportunity for this House to debate this matter, I believe it would be dangerous for me to do so on that basis. I must point out to the House that this matter has been discussed in very considerable detail, and debated and voted upon in another place as well, over a long period of time. That would be the basis of my view. I hope that the noble Lord will understand it.
Of course, I will see what can be done to help the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and I understand the importance of the question he is raising. But I cannot give him the undertaking quite in the way that he has asked for it; I would be being dishonest to the House and to myself if I pretended that it was otherwise.

Housing: Structural Safety
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on defective housing.

Somerset House Bill [H.L.]
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to introduce a Bill to confer leasing powers on the Crown in respect of the Fine Rooms and other parts of Somerset House with a view to their use for artistic, cultural or other purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Bill to be read a first time, and to be printed.

Oil Taxation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Maximum Number of Judges Order 1983
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Court of Appeal is the focal point of the English judicial system, and it is therefore vital that it should keep up with its work. The draft order to which the Motion refers relates to the ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, as the House will know, is manned by ex officio judges and ordinary judges, and this is laid down in Section 2 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
The two ex officio judges who normally sit in the Court of Appeal are the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, but one or two of the others assist there from time to time. The ordinary judges of the court, known as Lords Justices of Appeal, make up its main judicial strength. There are at present 18, and that is the limit fixed by Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The purpose of this draft order, as is apparent from its terms, is to increase the maximum to 23 places, although, as I shall be saying, I only intend at present to suggest that three should be filled.
The workload of the court has been rising substantially. The last time the maximum was increased (from 16 to 18) was in 1978, under the reign of the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. In that year, 1,371 civil appeals were set down. The civil appeals take up the bulk of judicial time in the Court of Appeal. Last year, 1982, the number was about 1,627. That is our best estimate, and is the figure which appears in the newly published volume of Judicial Statistics. That represents an increase of about 18 ½ per cent. over 1978. So far this year there has been a slight drop in the rate at which new work is coming in, but the substantial and continuing increase in the total workload of the civil courts suggests that the overall trend will continue to be in the upward direction.
The Court of Appeal has also to man its criminal division. In this division the pattern has varied since 1978. That year came in the middle of a falling trend

967
which ended in 1980, but in 1978 there were 6,099 new appeals registered; in 1980, 5,400 new appeals were entered. Since then, the workload has risen again. In 1982, 6,674 new appeals were registered—an increase of 9½ per cent. over the 1978 figure; and I am sorry to say that there has been a further strong rise this year, with 3,591 new appeals compared with 3,223 in the same period of last year, which means a further increase of 11½ per cent.
Moreover, the upsurge in cases coming forward to the Crown Court, which lies behind the increase in the number of appeals, shows no sign of abating. What is even more significant, as regards the need for Lords Justices, is that the proportion of cases in which leave to appeal has been granted by the single judge has been increasing. In the great majority of criminal appeals leave to appeal must be obtained first from a single judge before the case may go for hearing to the full court, and that full court consists of two judges for appeals against sentence and three judges for appeals against conviction.
In 1978leave to appeal was given by the single judge in only one in six cases, and in a further sixth the application for leave was renewed to the full court. Since 1978 the proportion of cases in which leave to appeal has been granted by the single judge has steadily risen, and by last year it was well over one-quarter. In addition, the number of cases in which applicants have renewed their applications to the full court has also increased. It is now slightly more than one in five of the total. These changes, taken together with the steep rise in applications, has meant that there is a greatly increased workload for judges of the Court of Appeal in the criminal division as well as in the civil division. There has also been a marked increase in the work of the Divisional Court, which now takes about half the time of a judge of the Court of Appeal.
Despite these substantial increases in workload on every front over a considerable period, I did not wish to seek an increase in the number of Lords Justices without being sure that the time of the existing judges was not being taken up with matters which could be dealt with by others, or was not otherwise being wasted. A working party under Lord Justice Scarman (as he then was) made certain recommendations which I brought into effect in the Supreme Court Act 1981. Leave to appeal is now required in a larger proportion of cases, especially county court appeals, and application for leave may now be heard by a single judge. Courts of two rather than three judges may be used for more classes of business than before. The House will remember that there is also a new Registrar of Civil Appeals who can deal with a variety of preliminary and incidental matters and ensure that the court's time is not taken up with cases that are not ready for hearing.
In addition, in April the Master of the Rolls issued a practice note requiring counsel to submit skeleton outlines of their arguments so as to save some of the time spent in oral argument. He has also announced that appeals which appear to have been lodged simply for the purpose of delay—which is not an unknown feature of this jurisdiction—will be listed early so as to defeat that purpose.
All these measures have helped, and to some extent waiting times have actually been reduced. But even so, appeals which can be heard by two-judge courts must wait on an average for six to seven months, and those for hearing by three-judge courts must sometimes wait 12 to 14 months. Although some further improvement may still be possible during the coming year. I believe there is little scope for major reductions in waiting times without an increase in the judicial strength of the court. At present—and I must stress this—the court is depending heavily on the services of retired judges of the Court of Appeal and could not have achieved even the present modest successes without them. I should like to express my gratitude to the retired judges; they have helped in this way enormously, and I hope they will continue to be willing and able to serve when the occasion arises. But it is not really right that the court should have to depend on their services as a matter of routine.
The draft order proposes an increase of five in the permitted number of Lords Justices, from 18 to 23. As I have said, not all five places need to be filled immediately. If the order is approved, I have it in mind to recommend three additional appointments only. As I have indicated, the present workload on the courts of first instance, both civil and criminal, makes it all too likely that further appointments will be required in due course. That is why the order allows me a little room for manoeuvre. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for going into detail in the way he has as to the reasons for his coming to the House to ask for this substantial increase in the potential number of Lords Justices of Appeal. I respectfully agree with what he has emphasised about the importance of maintaining the smooth working of the Court of Appeal, which is crucial to the administration of justice in our country, and of coping with the increase in the work coming before it. I was concerned, if I may say so, about the evidence that the Court of Appeal was failing to cope with the volume of work coming before it, and I was grateful for the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and other Lords Justices in initiating the steps which culminated in the legislation which the noble and learned Lord has introduced to strengthen the Court of Appeal in various ways. The suggestions and the initiative of the present Master of the Rolls are valued, and it is good to know that they are bearing fruit.
The civil work of the court continues to increase. There was a 10 per cent. increase in 1982 over the previous year, and I suspect it will be the same sort of picture in this year as well. On the criminal side, the great increase in the number of criminal appeals, sadly, reflects the great increase in the amount of crime, which has reached an explosive point. I am not making a party political point of this, which is a happy change from some of the atmosphere which prevailed earlier. The fact is that in the last three or four years there has been a serious increase in the volume of crime. It is a matter we shall be discussing and examining in the coming week.

969
Obviously, I have only got the 1982 volume of Judicial Statistics. On the criminal side there were 2,516 criminal appeals outstanding at the end of 1982. While we are glad to hear of the improvement in the speed of dealing with appeals, nevertheless, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, a waiting period of 12 to 14 months before cases involving appeals against conviction are heard before three judges is obviously far too long and something which we cannot be happy about as a feature of the administration of justice in this country. After all, a number of those men and women waiting for their appeals to be heard will succeed in their appeals, and we have no system of remedy for the ultimately acquitted defendant. So it is important, especially when one bears in mind the appalling conditions in prisons in this country, which show very little sign of improvement. So we are touching the heart of a very serious problem in the administration of justice, and, in so far as the addition of more Lord Justices can help, we of course greatly welcome the development.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to widen a little the matters which we ought perhaps to be considering. I would refer to the position lower down in the court set-up; to what is happening in the county courts. There, the number of cases is leaping up. In 1981, over 2,092,000 cases were begun in the county courts. Last year, 2,300,000 cases were commenced in the county courts. I am informed, particularly through the solicitors, that the problems and backlog building up in the county courts is comparatively every bit as serious as those at the higher levels of the judicial system.
It is also suggested that the reduction in the number of civil servants concerned, for instance, in the process of levying execution—worthy as it is statistically as a figure in reducing the size of the Civil Service—is, I am told, having an adverse effect on the ability of the litigant to recover what is due to him. That is causing a great deal of anxiety.
I apologise for having ventured into that aspect and, because of the lack of notice, I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to answer. But I think it is perhaps right that we should not ignore the lower courts, which are the courts in which most of our citizens, plus the magistrates, experience the working of the administration of justice. Their reputation must obviously be maintained and therefore, in rightly looking at the top level, we should not forget the burden that falls on the lower courts.
4 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, this is an important order which will be welcomed by all those who practise in law. It will certainly be welcomed by those whose cases are coming before this court. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it will be of very great importance in the Criminal Division, for those who have an appeal pending, that that appeal should be heard within a reasonable time. The noble and learned Lord pointed out the consequences for a person who might have his conviction quashed and who will have possibly spent some time in prison while awaiting that process. The Court of Appeal, as described by the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor, is the focal point in the administration of justice. It is a
970
very hard-pressed court because it bears the greatest burden of all. It is the final court in the majority of cases and, if I may say so with respect to some former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary whom I see present on the Cross-Benches today, it has to do very much more work than the Judicial Committee of this House. I am not complaining in any sense, but it is the sheer volume of work which goes into the Court of Appeal which makes this order which has been introduced by the Lord Chancellor so important. In the view of the profession there has long been a need for an increase in the number of judges in the Court of Appeal.
The order will, of course, assist the present Master of the Rolls in his valiant efforts, through administrative changes, to expedite hearings. Such administrative changes are much favoured by those who practice, provided there is no diminution of public and oral argument in appeals. We must be on guard against the introduction of the American or European systems where, in so many appeals, the issues are decided on very limited public argument and mainly on the submission of written documents. The English and Scottish tradition has been the public hearing of appeals where the public and the individual litigant hear the actual case being presented and argued before the court.
Personally, I have the greatest reservations on all forms of proceedings from which the public are excluded. It is only on matters of national security that members of the public should be excluded. The presence of the public and of the press in proceedings in courts of law is an essential protection of liberty. Some members of this House and the other place are often critical of the service of the press, but we should be conscious of the great service given by the press in attending and regularly reporting the processes of the courts. It imposes a discipline upon the courts and it protects the liberty of the subject. Therefore, any appeal on paper would be a limit on that safeguard and I trust will not be introduced. The Master of the Rolls has made quite clear in the practice direction to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred and has robustly asserted that there is no intention of limiting public argument in the appeal. I welcome and encourage that statement.
The second consequence of this new order—and I say this with the greatest respect—will be the avoidance of needing to use, in the Court of Appeal, former judges who are of great distinction and experience but who are beyond the statutory retirement age. Hitherto it has been unavoidable in order to keep the work of the court going. As I have said, they are former judges with great experience and skill, but Parliament, for the courts and in other fields, has decided that there should be an age limit. That is not a reflection on many or most of these distinguished judges who have so nobly helped in the work of the Court of Appeal, but it is a matter of principle and it really should not be circumvented. However, I believe that the opportunities for any Lord Chancellor to get the services of these former judges are now much reduced by the attractive offers to act as private arbitrators which are now flooding across the tables of the former judges, so they may not now be so available.
Nor do I think that the quality will be diluted by the appointment of these extra Lords Justices. In my 37

971
years in practice I can say that rarely has there been a time when the standard of the top echelon of the puisne judges has been so high. I can think of many puisne judges who are fitted by both intellect and character to be promoted to the Court of Appeal. In June, when I mentioned this in speaking on the Queen's Speech, I said that I hoped the new Parliament would afford an opportunity for energetic law reform. It is most encouraging to see signs from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which demonstrate that he has in hand so much good work in this field and which we hope those fierce Whips will permit him to do in managing the business of the Government.
It is essential for the courts to be adequately staffed, and I am glad that the Lord Chancellor has persuaded that other hovering guardian of the public purse, the Treasury, to introduce what will prove to be perhaps more expensive but certainly a very considerable extension to this court. I trust that in appointing three he will shortly consider appointing more so that there will be more expedition in the hearing of appeals, to the very great benefit of the public in the administration of justice.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am encouraged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, whom we are always delighted to hear, and by the way in which he roamed into various fields not directly connected with this order, to make a few observations, if I may, in furtherance of what my noble and learned friend—
Lord Hale: My Lords, why does the noble Lord feel that he has the burden now to rise and make further comment when two or three noble Lords here have been popping up from time to time?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that I always want to give way to him. I did not turn round so did not see him rise, and I apologise. If I can assist him by sitting down and letting him speak, and then speaking afterwards, I shall do so with the greatest of pleasure. The noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, remains seated, so I will continue, but I again apologise to him.
As I said, I was encouraged to emphasise on behalf of my own profession what my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones was saying about the need to look at other courts. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the Court of Appeal, if I remember his words, as being the focal point of the English legal system. May I be allowed to say that county courts, to which my noble and learned friend referred, are possibly the focal point of the English legal system because more and more the parties who now appear before those courts do so by virtue of the substantially increased jurisdiction which those courts have.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, was trying to urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor swiftly to increase the number of Lords Justices of Appeal from the three to the five that he would be authorised to have. On behalf of my
972
profession I think I can say that we should welcome that. But if there are monetary targets which appear here in front of the noble and the learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he is thinking in terms of priority, I hope that he will remember—as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones urged—the very substantial needs of the county courts and the way in which lists there are getting absolutely packed and full, with the resultant delays in hearing cases in the county court. That is something that I am sure your Lordships will deprecate, as I know will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, may I briefly accord a similar welcome from these Benches as has been accorded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to this very useful measure which has been gone into with such care and detail by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is almost traditional in your Lordships' House when English lawyers rise to address your Lordships on matter of Scots law to say that they do so with the greatest trepidation. That trepidation is as nothing compared with the trepidation felt by mere Scots lawyers when venturing into this area.
Unfortunately, it is a feature of almost every developed system of law that delays are apt to arise and to add to the frustration—and sometimes worse—of ordinary people who for one reason or another are involved in the courts of justice. So it is natural that everyone in your Lordships' House should welcome this contribution presented to the House today towards reducing the law's delays.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, said. He knows a very great deal more about the matter than I do. For that reason I wondered whether I should even take the opportunity to say this. These questions in one way or another have continued to arise throughout my legal life. The Law Society wrote to me the other day to congratulate me—or felicitate with me—on having completed 60 years of service on the Rolls. My memory goes back to some very quaint legal procedures—even to verdicts being handed down with a pair of tongs.
The county court is a comparatively modern creation. It is a court for the collection of small debts. Had people thought about it to start with, they would know that you cannot collect small debts. I used to have clients who were rent collectors. They got very little for their endeavours but they kept an office on it. In days of moderate prosperity they could make a little living, but in days when unemployment began to grow no one was able to pay those simple debts. A few years ago in Oldham we had generous grocers and other food suppliers, including particularly the Co-op. Although it did not formally grant credit it would never send some poor man away without a little help when he could not pay a bill. No one minded. It was a human system based upon human needs. The same applied to rents. People were not turned out of their houses so brutally because there was always the house next door with a spare room for the victims of an eviction.

973
In all this area of small debts there is much the same principle. There is the simple difficulty: if a chap cannot pay, he cannot pay. The idea of shutting him in prison once every six weeks because he has not paid a debt is the most daft and in many ways the most cruel and exacerbating method that has ever been introduced.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has been very kind to me. Perhaps I have gone a little wide on the county court question, but I think it is a vital issue. I think we are reaching the stage where it has to be dealt with. As the noble and learned Lord knows, I have sat on at least two or three law reform committees—indeed on a dozen, I should think—and have been called upon to judge these matters. We ought to look at the bankruptcy laws. A Question has been put down on that aspect.
We had a passionate desire to grant the right of appeal. In my time it has been extended time after time. The area of appeal is extending. A couple of ships might collide in Chinese waters. They might both be Chinese owned. But whether such a case can be heard here might depend on where the registered office was. We see case after case involving complicated detail, and immensely important appeals are dealt with by the Court of Appeal which it would not have understood when I first started to practise. No one can fail to agree that the standard of the judiciary has risen incredibly. Counsel and others discuss complexities which in our day we could never have handled. We did not even have the machinery in the office to do so. But all that does not get over the matter that we are discussing.
I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would have been able to say that we could leave this for a little time, but he says that the need is really pressing. He has reduced his possible appointments from five to three. I should not feel it right to oppose proposals which he has digested and considered and which I have not.
4.19 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I know that the House wants to get on with its business: I think I should reply briefly to the very welcome speeches that I have heard. I was glad to have the support of my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. He is right. I do not think there has been an occasion that I can remember when the actual administration of the courts has ever been a matter of party politics. We all want to achieve efficiency and justice. We do our best to do so even when opinions sometimes differ. I think that the noble and learned Lord probably misunderstood one point in what I originally said. The 12 to 14 months' delay is the period for three judge appeals in the civil division of the Court of Appeal and not the criminal appeals. Some criminal appeals which succeed are appeals against sentence and not appeals against conviction.
I briefly say this about the reforms which I have announced reducing the number of civil servants in the county courts. The only effect of this is in the service of process and the enforcement of judgments. I could give the noble and learned Lord an exposé of the merits of the reforms, but they do not affect the
974
order which I am now asking the House to approve, because they do not affect the number of proceedings before the county court and therefore cannot, even indirectly, affect the Court of Appeal.
I was very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell. There is, I believe, no intention on the part of the noble Lord the Master of the Rolls to reduce oral speeches at all. I think that it is helpful to a court to know what the point in a case is going to be, and it reduces the actual time of hearing if the judges are allowed to know that; and his provision for skeleton arguments is, I think, devoted entirely to that.
Of course, I agree with my noble and learned friend on what he said about the necessity for a public hearing wherever possible. There are, of course, the well-known Scott v. Scott exceptions. There is also the point about the value of reporters. I cannot promise my noble and learned friend that we shall not continue to use retired judges. Some of them are of the very highest quality, and sometimes my lips water when I see that they are being taken away by really important private arbitrators at a fee vastly above that which I can offer.
I think that I can endorse what has been said about the quality of the judiciary. During my professional lifetime, which does not go back quite as far as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hale, the quality of the judiciary has improved as a whole almost out of all recognition.
I would quite endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, from the Scottish point of view. When I have had the pleasure of listening to Scottish counsel in the House of Lords, I have always been immensely impressed by their quality, though their numbers are approximately those of the Wales and Chester circuit; but they manage to keep up the quality extraordinarily well, with a very high degree of learning and skill and professional standards of all kinds. Having said that, I should just like to thank all noble Lords for the generous welcome that has been given to the Motion.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about one point, for clarification, which I believe is important to the layman and which I at least find extremely puzzling. Can he give me in general his view as to why there has been such an astonishing increase in civil litigation coming before the Court of Appeal since, say, the war?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, one obvious point is that the population has very largely increased in numbers. Another factor which one must bear in mind is the number of personal injuries; there has been an increase in the number of accidents. There is a third point, which is very difficult to formulate, but if there is arise or a fall in prices, one will find that litigation in contract increases enormously. If prices are steady, most of the sale of goods cases tend to disappear, but if there is a sharp change in prices in either direction, the number of civil claims increases.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I be permitted to add that legal aid is an additional factor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Of course, I ought to have remembered that point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing: Structural Safety
4.24 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. The Statement reads as follows:
"On 7th September 1982 my honourable friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing announced a scheme of financial assistance in the form of repairs grants or repurchase to owners of Airey houses which had been sold by public bodies and which had subsequently been discovered to be subject to serious defects or potential defects. On 8th February he told the House that he had asked the Building Research Establishment to study possible deterioration in other types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before I960. The establishment is publishing today an Information Paper summarising its findings of separate reports on six of the most common types—the Boot, Cornish Unit, Orlit, Unity, Wates, and Woolaway designs. A copy of the Information Paper has been placed in the Library.
"The Building Research Establishment has found that the reinforced concrete components in all six types are gradually deteriorating as a result of carbonation of the concrete and, in some cases, the presence of high levels of chloride, leading to corrosion of the steel reinforcement and consequent cracking of the concrete. The great majority of the houses studied were found to be in structurally sound condition. There were significant differences in the rate of deterioration both between and within types. Some cracking was found in all the types and the nature of the process is such that deterioration will continue, although in some cases very slowly. All houses of these types will eventually be affected by cracking. Cracking in a proportion of houses will not occur for some years, and a few houses may not display any evidence of deterioration for the next 30 years or more.
"No conditions were found which were structurally unsafe. Risk to stability would be preceded by visible serious cracking in Boot, Cornish Unit, Wates and Woolaway houses. In Orlit houses, concealed main and secondary beams should be inspected now, if this has not been done already following the department's letter to local authorities of 2nd September 1982. Concealed columns and steel bracing in those Unity houses which have plasterboard or other dry lining should be inspected within the next year. Where serious cracking is present, professional advice should be sought.
"The processes of carbonation and attack by chlorides are likely to affect all prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. There are about 170,000 of these houses in the United
976
Kingdom which were built by public bodies. Approximately 16,500 have been sold, mostly to sitting tenants.
"I stress that the Building Research Establishment's studies are only of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. The conclusions carry no implications for houses of non-traditional design which use other load-bearing materials.
"Private owners will find themselves in a difficult position as a result of the effect of these findings on the value of their houses. The Government have decided to introduce early legislation to provide a scheme of assistance to private owners of houses sold by the public sector and since found to be defective or potentially defective. This will be on lines which are broadly similar to those of the scheme for owners of Airey houses which is already in existence.
"The essential feature of the proposals will be a right of assistance. This will arise where the Secretary of State determines that houses of a particular category built by a public body should fall within the scheme because he is satisfied that, as a result of their design or construction, they suffer from, or can be expected to suffer from, structural defects not discoverable by normal survey at the time they were sold, and which have resulted in a substantial loss of value in real terms as compared with the value at purchase. In respect of these houses local authorities will be under a statutory duty to assist either by way of a repairs grant or repurchase.
"A grant of 90 per cent. of eligible expenses on repairs is intended to be the main form of assistance. But there will be cases in which repair will be uneconomic, or will not give the house a further useful life of at least 30 years, or will still not make the house mortgageable in the private sector. There will be other cases in which there would be hardship for the owner if repair were the only form of assistance possible. In these cases we propose to lay a duty on local authorities to acquire the dwellings if the owner wishes. Owners will receive 95 per cent. of the defect-free value of the house.
"We have in mind that the scheme should apply to all types of prefabricated reinforced concrete house built before 1960. However, no final decisions have been taken on the initial coverage of the scheme and the BRE is studying six further types to supplement its findings.
"In addition to the mandatory scheme, local authorities will be given a discretionary power to assist owners of defective houses which meet these criteria, but in respect of which the Secretary of State has made no order requiring the local authority to give assistance. This power will enable local authorities to assist where there are local problems.
"The local authority associations will now be consulted about these proposals. I will be asking them to comment before 16th December on a consultation document which is being sent to them today; a copy is being placed in the Library. A Bill to give effect to these proposals in Great Britain will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter. Separate legislation will be introduced for Northern Ireland.

977
"The need for expenditure by individual local authorities on this scheme, and on defective houses remaining in their own stock, will be taken into account in determining their housing investment program me allocations.
"The BRE has also studied the Smith house, which uses a different system of construction. A detailed report will be published next month. I shall be considering whether local authorities should be under a duty to give assistance to private owners of that type of house.
"The department is writing to local authorities to inform them of the BRE's findings and of the proposals for legislation. Copies of the letter to local authorities and a table giving figures of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in each local authority area have been placed in the Library.
"The Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office will be writing in similar terms to local authorities there. The Scottish Development Department will also be writing to the Scottish Special Housing Association and will be holding consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
"Mr. Speaker, I apologise to the House for the length of this statement and for the fact that the texts of the seven separate reports which have only just been finalised are not yet available for publication. But I wanted to make a Statement just as soon as possible. The reports will be published very early next month, and will be sent to local authorities with a request that they be passed on to private owners of these houses in their areas".
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We naturally welcome the extension of assistance to the categories that he mentioned. However, I would point out that some of the worst houses were built after 1960 and are not subject to these proposals; for example, Bison and the BISF houses. Can the Minister say whether there are any plans for these? By restricting the legislation, as paragraph 6 of the Statement states, to provide assistance for owners of houses which have been sold to those owners by the public sector, it means that council house tenants are completely excluded. Most of these houses are in local authority ownership. The quantification of the problem on a national basis is 500,000 houses with repair bills amounting to around £5 billion. This is the result of an AMA report which I am sure is well known to the Minister. Does not the Minister agree that this will have devastating effects on council house rents, as local authority houses are not going to be helped? Is it not unfair to ask council house tenants to bear this burden?
I notice that paragraph 12 of the Statement says that the need for expenditure on defective houses will be taken into account in determining housing investment programme allocations. But during the period of this Government housing investment programme allocations have been cut by 60 per cent. In view of public expenditure cutbacks in the past and those that we unfortunately fear in the future, in which housing
978
has always been an outstanding sufferer, will this be fully covered in determining HIP allocations in order to permit the carrying out of very necessary repairs and the rescue of very great deterioration?
I see that paragraph 7 states that in respect of certain of these houses,
"local authorities will be under a statutory duty to assist either by way of a repairs grant or repurchase".
Can the Minister enlarge on that? I take it to mean that the local authorities, come what may, have to find money somehow. With all the restrictions on local authorities, how will they do that? I am sorry about all these questions but the Minister said that it was a long Statement.
Paragraph 8 states:
"There will be other cases in which there would be hardship for the owner if repair were the only form of assistance possible. In these cases we propose to lay a duty on local authorities to acquire the dwellings if the owner wishes".
I do not understand which are those cases. It is not clear. How are local authorities to find the funds unless these are completely covered in their Housing Investment Programme allocations? If not sufficiently financed, it must mean that council house tenants living in these properties will only be able to get a grant to resolve these defects if they have purchased them. They will have to purchase the house in order to get the defects corrected. This is a financial and social squeeze that will be extremely painful.
Although the Statement says that the defects, at the moment, are not structural, if the defects are allowed to remain and deterioration goes on, then they could become structurally unsafe and continual neglect could lead to danger—a danger to health and the risk of some accident that would affect the occupants of the houses.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I congratulate the Government, on the whole, for the speed and the thoroughness with which they have tackled this problem. The only question that I wish to ask follows along the same lines as that put by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. On the question of refunding expenditure, the position of local authorities financially, in this field as in others, as noble Lords will not need reminding, is not a happy one at this moment, and the prospects for the next year are not happy. It is good to know that large proportions of the expenditure will be met centrally and also that, according to the extremely vital paragraph 12, the need for expenditure will be taken into account in determining housing investment programme allocations. It is clear that when the Minister consults the local authority associations, one of their requests will he for 100 per cent. help in this matter. It is possibly what they should have. Have the Government considered this? If so, why have they rejected it?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for what I think were their helpful and constructive comments. I should like to try and pick up the points that they made. The noble Baroness was concerned about houses built after 1960. Who knows what the future will bring as to that? But the report in

979
question refers to those built prior to that time. I would not want today to start casting the mind ahead. The problem is big enough as it is. It will have to be resolved over many years, I suspect, in the generality of all the houses to which I have referred.
I was aware of the AMA's £5 billion figure, Of course, I cannot comment upon it. I do not know how far it is right or wrong. I suspect, like many things, that there is an element of truth in what it says. It is a possibility but I would not want to be anything like so pessimistic myself. I should perhaps try to pick up a point that the noble Baroness made about Bison. As she knows from what was contained in the Statement, this scheme only covers dwellings that suffer from or can be expected to suffer from structural defects or potential defects resulting from their design or construction and which were not discoverable by normal survey at the time of purchase. I have no reason to believe that this is true of any dwellings nationally other than those built before that time although, as I have already said, this is something we shall have to look to for the future
The noble Baroness referred to the cut in the HIP allocations over a period of time. That is a fair comment except that there is just around now about the same percentage of cut that took place over the period of time of the previous Administration. That is so, if the noble Baroness checks. In any case, that is not really the problem with which we are faced today. The point is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred. That is the mention in the Statement of two things. One is that we obviously have to consult the associations about this. Secondly, it is intended to take this into account when making the HIP allocations. This will be a matter for discussion with the associations.
The noble Baroness asked how the local authorities will find the money for repurchase in view of all the difficulties. In that respect I have to bring her back to the sum of £6 billion in capital receipts currently in the hands of local authorities from the sale of council houses. So while there may well be problems—indeed, there are problems, as is apparent from the other factors that have been mentioned—for the authorities, I should have thought that the least of them would be the cash to repurchase. However, we shall see how that comes out in the consultations.
I am sorry if I did not quite follow the point made by the noble Baroness about the need for tenants to get grants to carry out defect repairs. Where tenants are in situ it is a basic problem for the authority itself. That in turn comes back to their HIPs and other resources, which will be part of the matters which they will surely want to raise in the consultations.
I hope that I have covered the initial points that have been raised. I recognise that this is a very unhappy situation for everyone to have to deal with. But I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for his comment about the Government feeling that we ought immediately, at the earliest moment, to face up to exactly what is happening. There are many people who are very anxious about this situation. It is proper that we should not delay at all, at least in starting something going with a view to taking action as quickly as possible.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister did not answer the question which I asked as regards clarification about the Statement. At the bottom of paragraph 8 it says:
"In these cases we propose to lay a duty on local authorities to acquire the dwellings if the owner wishes".
It is not at all clear in which cases they are going to do so, or in which cases they àre under a statutory duty to assist by way of repairs grant or repurchase. Indeed, the money that they have obtained from selling houses will not be all that help on the capital account when they are faced with revenue expenditure to deal with the houses themselves. I still think that it is very sad for the local authorities. I hope that when the consultations take place the Government will take note of the situation. The local housing associations have already raised this matter at the Housing Consultative Council meeting, and they have got absolutely nowhere.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, obviously I cannot comment on what took place at the last council meeting. The duty to re-acquire will apply where the repair is unlikely to give a mortgageable product. That is essentially what the Statement is saying. It may well be that this will have to be brought out in discussions with the associations when we sit down and talk about it with them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that, while I and certainly many other people will be grateful for the assistance which is to be given to private owners, nevertheless we are considerably worried about the enormous burden that repairs will place on local authorities and, indeed, the tenants? I have it in mind—and the noble Lord has much experience of this—that many of these houses were built and purchased by local authorities at the behest of central Government. Indeed, central Government actively campaigned for and actively promoted these houses. I believe, therefore, that they have a duty to the local authorities to finance the whole of these repairs. If they do not do so, I fear that the local authorities themselves will be under great burden and great pressure; and particularly, of course, their tenants.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations, with which in many ways I agree. I personally was on the receiving end of similar situations, but I must hasten to add that it was post-1960, though only just. When we begin to look at where the responsibility lies and to question who should put up the resources, we venture into very sticky territory. Certainly central Government have a part to play, for the reasons that I know, and local authorities also have a role in this whole matter. It would be wrong to say other than that were so. But it probably does not help us today to press on with this matter, other than to take up the point which the noble Lord was making about how much central Government should pay. That will have to come out in the discussions that will take place. I cannot help the noble Lord by expanding on the matter further at present, as I am sure he will appreciate. The point he makes is fundamentally valid. However, there is another aspect to it which will have to be weighed in the balance at the end of the day.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1983
4.46 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th July 1983 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords I beg to move that the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 25th July, be approved. I trust that it will be convenient to your Lordships to discuss at the same time the Scottish Motion, concerning the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, which were laid before this House on 27th October.
These two sets of regulations, which are laid under powers contained in Section 87 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, provide for a number of changes to the fees scheme which was first introduced in April 1981 and amended in June 1982. They update, supersede and consolidate both the original regulations and the amending regulations of 1982. The changes which the new regulations introduce follow the review of the workings of the planning fees scheme which my noble friend Lord Avon announced when speaking to last year's regulations.
I think it would probably he useful to give the House a brief outline—and I promise that it will be very brief—of the way in which the fees scheme works, in order to put the changes into context. Any applicant who seeks planning permission must, when making his application, pay a fee to the local planning authority. The fee is a contribution to the costs of handling an application. The fee is prescribed by the regulations and it cannot be waived or refunded. There are however concessions to deal with specific cases where normal fees would be unreasonable. Subject to that, applications are charged according to the factors which determine handling costs, the kind of development proposed and its size where this is relevant. The scheme is designed to achieve: a fair balance between the categories of development; fees which broadly reflect handling costs; no discouragement of sensible planning applications; and simplicity of operation and clarity about the fee payable.
In our review, we invited comments on how the scheme was working from over 140 organisations. But we made clear that the principle of charging for applications was not under review. Over 180 bodies or individuals replied. In the main, local planning authorities preferred simplicity and were against major changes. Developers and interest groups argued, understandably perhaps, for more concessions and thus for more complexity.
We have tried to balance these conflicting demands and have looked very carefully at constructive suggestions made to us. There was however no general call for a radical restructuring. The overall shape and the degree of detail in the scheme is broadly right, we
982
found, and it is working reasonably well. The scheme is now well established and does not, as some feared, seem to impose any great burden upon either applicants or planning authorities. After her supplementary question to me last week—actually, my Lords, I think that we can forget this part of my speech. I was going to refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. However, since I am digressing somewhat from my speech I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to the Front Bench to assist us in our debates on these particularly technical subjects.
One of the results has been more informal discussion of applications before they are submitted formally, and planning officers often help applicants to get proposals right first time so that the fee is not spent on an unsuccessful application. This may have contributed to the speeding up of the handling of applications which I reported to the House last week.
The most important change in the draft regulation is an increase of 7 per cent. in the overall level of fees. As last year, this increase does no more than take account of inflation over the period since the previous increase in June 1982. Fees will continue to offset something like 40 per cent. of the total estimated expenditure on development control, which is currently of the order of £70 million to £75 million per annum in England and Wales.
Depending on the future levels of applications—and of course on their average size—the yield from fees at the new rate in a full year is estimated at between £28 million and £30 million. Our best view of next year's likely income will of course be reflected in the calculation of rate support grant for next year. I am pleased to say that the initial problem of a shortfall in fee income in comparison to rate support grant assumptions, something which noble Lords discussed at some length during last year's debate, has not arisen again this year. The prediction of fee income for 1982–83 of some £27 million, which my noble friend Lord Avon made during that debate, has, on our best present estimate, proved to be an accurate one.
The remaining changes aim at refining the scheme. Last year my noble friend undertook to consider what more might be done to meet the problems of glasshouse growers. Even with last year's discount for agricultural buildings, the fee for the typical one acre or more glasshouse has been considered by many in the industry to be excessive and unjustified in terms of local authority handling costs. We were persuaded by these arguments, and I am therefore pleased to announce a special new category of fee for glasshouses—including the polythene tunnels which are often used. The fee will be a flat rate £280. Glasshouses below 465 square metres in area which need specific planning permission will continue to be exempt from fee. As a one-time member of the horticultural industry myself, I am sure that this concession will be welcomed by commercial horticulturists everywhere.
Another very desirable change concerns works to adapt a disabled person's dwellinghouse. At present, there is a limited exemption on works for a property occupied by a disabled person. We have extended this exemption to applications where the disabled person has not taken up residence in the house concerned, thus covering cases where alterations are needed

983
before he or she can live there. There is also an entirely new exemption for works to improve disabled people's access to buildings in public use, such as shops and cinemas. We hope that these concessions will help further to improve the position of disabled people in the community.
We have also been concerned to remove anomalies and difficulties in the fees scheme itself. There are a number of small changes to this end, and in view of their highly technical nature I will confine myself to a summary of their main features rather than attempt a lengthy exposition.
We propose an exemption for an applicant who applies to amend his plans after they have been approved within one year of receiving planning permission. We propose to halve the normal rates of fee for applications made by parish councils, to reflect their special position as a tier of local government. Where development straddles a planning authority boundary, we propose a lower maximum fee than would normally arise, to avoid penalising applicants for accidents of geography.
We propose to clarify the present regulations for advertisement applications by specifying that the fiat-rate fee (which will be £47) applies to the whole site covered by the application, to avoid the problems of defining the "site" which have arisen in the past. Where the outdoor storage of minerals and spoil needs planning permission, we propose a sliding scale of fees to replace the current flat rate of £44, since these applications mean a good deal of work for local planning authorities.
We propose a flat-rate fee of £47 for the renewal of temporary planning permissions for temporary buildings instead of the existing exemption, unless the application is made within 12 months of the original permission. And, finally, we propose to simplify the rules governing the fee payable for seeking approval of the details of a development which has already received outline planning permission.
I now turn to the position in Scotland. Consultations on the operation of the fees system there gave rise to conclusions which were very similar to those of the review to which I have already referred. Thus the Scottish regulations are much the same as those for England and Wales, with some very minor differences to reflect different circumstances north of the border.
In both countries there were of course a good many other suggestions for changing the fees scheme. Some of these seemed at first to be attractive, but on closer examination turned out not to fit in with one or more of our guiding principles. A sliding scale for changes of use, for example, was one such idea, which we concluded was simply not practicable.
A concession for charities and voluntary bodies was another possibility which we looked at with particular care, together with a concession for applications made by small firms. We believe however that the nature of the application, not the applicant, is what should count in the calculation of fees.
In reviewing the scheme and preparing the detailed changes in these new draft regulations we have not been concerned to maximise fee income. We have
984
instead looked with an open mind at every representation and suggestion made to us, and we will continue to do so as we monitor the scheme in the future. Our aim will be to maintain the right balance between fairness to the applicant on the one hand and administrative simplicity on the other, while continuing to safeguard the overall aims of the scheme. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th July 1983 be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
4.57 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to begin by acknowledging with appreciation the remarks of welcome made by the noble Lord to me for the post that I now hold for the Opposition. It is an honourable post and one that I am proud to hold. I very much look forward to taking part in debates on matters which relate to the environment. I am almost tempted to say that I have been here before. I have not been at this particular spot before, but I have certainly been here before with regard to the issues which we are now debating, because I served as a Member of the Standing Committee of another place on the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, and I also raised this particular point on the Floor of the House of Commons when the matter arose in 1981 and 1982. Of course, I have had the opportunity of reading the exchanges in another place.
I certainly appreciate the care and the attention which the Minister has given to these regulations. He has given a very full explanation in detail, something which I certainly do not propose to do at this stage. In another place my colleagues raised a fundamental difference as to why fees ought to be charged at all because Members of the Opposition take the view that planning is a community obligation. This is a system that has served this country very well for 150 years. The purpose of planning restrictions is to protect the community generally. The planning system is not a service for individual applicants, but is designed to benefit the community as a whole.
The Minister alluded more than once to the basic raison d'être for the action of the Government, which is to reduce central Government expenditure. In effect, at the end of the day, when one looks at the level of charges, what is happening is that those who apply for planning applications are paying for a service which hitherto had been paid for either by central Government or partly by central Government and partly by local government in the rate support grant. The Minister must be aware from following the procedures of colleagues in other departments that this is an insidious situation.
Once one begins to adopt the policy that a service is provided by the community for which there is a need and demand and for which people will have to pay if they need the service—and the situation here is that people who need to build, to extend, or to change the use of the building need that permission and, therefore, the Government have said that if there is a need they are to pay towards it—where will this Government stop in that procedure? We all know that where other services have been provided as a

985
right—for instance, meals on wheels or home helps—the Government have decided to charge for them. They have decided to make charges in this particular field. What other council services, which hitherto have been provided to the community as a basic right, will the Government examine? The House and the country ought to be well aware that in this particular instance the Government are yet again shifting the burden of a need from the central Exchequer on to either the local exchequer or the individuals.
I was interested in the words of the noble Lord. I am reassured that the difficulty in the earlier years has been overcome. Without looking at the statistics, I can remember the authorities getting hot under the collar when the rate support grant negotiations took place in the early years because of an assumption that the charges would bring in a certain figure. I think that the figure of £38 million was estimated to be brought in, yet at the end of the first year only £25 million was brought in. As a consequence there were £13 million which the authorities had then to find from some other source of income, or some other charge.
Is the Minister saying that it has been possible to work out a procedure based upon experience which indicates that when this is a matter of the rate support grant discussions, the estimate which will be taken into account as income from fee charges is, as near as makes no difference, equal? In other words, there will not be a shortfall whereby the ratepayers will have to make up the difference? If that is what the Minister is saying, then that as a major point of change will be very welcome indeed.
The Minister indicated that a fundamental review had taken place, consultations had taken place, observations had been made, and he was satisfied that although the general principle of charging was not at issue, some tidying up had taken place. So far as the AMA is concerned that, while there may have been changes which removed anomalies, the changing of the regulations to remove the anomalies has simply meant that there has been an increase in the complexities.
May I give to the House and the Minister the illustration which the AMA have given to us:
"Examples of the additional complexity introduced by the new regulations include the amendment to enable applications submitted by parish and community councils to be charged at a special half rate and the introduction of a new 'free go' for minor amendments to proposals for which planning permission was granted within the previous 12 months".
The Minister gave the House a careful explanation that these were benefits. The AMA tell us:
"Changes such as these will inevitably create more confusion on the part of applicants and increase the burden on local planning authority staff at a time when councils are being urged to determine applications more speedily and reduce current expenditure".
The Minister knows as well as I do that when the AMA speak so positively they can only do so because that is the advice given to them by the planning officers and departments whose views have been canvassed. If this is what local authority planning departments are saying, what is the Minister doing either to refute or rebut, or to try to take into account the problems which the planning departments see?
In a previous manifestation I served on the London Borough of Enfield council. From time to time I made
986
contact with the officers to ask for their views on legislation going before Parliament. On this occasion I sought the views of the deputy planning officer of the London Borough of Enfield, Mr. Bill Issitt, who is a fair-minded man. I am glad to tell the Minister that after three years he finds that the problems that they anticipated have not arisen as they expected at the time, and they are satisfied that the system is working well, provided that any shortfall in rates or income which they were worried about is actually made up.
Would the Minister care to comment on these statistics? In the year January to December 1980, which was the year before the regulations came into effect, there were 2,400 applications to carry out development of all sorts, and 40 applications for formal determinations. The Minister appreciates that the formal determination request is one whereby an applicant wants to know before he submits an application whether in actual fact it needs a planning application at all. In the year before there were only 40. In the year January to December 1981 there were 1,970 applications to carry out development of all sorts, and 600 applications for formal determinations.
We can understand a shortfall from 2,400 to 1,970 applications, because a number of people would decide that they were not going to apply if in actual fact they needed to pay a fee. But the astounding increase from 40 requests for determinations to 600 requests in the London Borough of Enfield indicates that a great deal of council officers' time is being taken up by applicants who say, "On the margin". The Minister is aware of the changes in the general development order, the increase from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in permitted development, and a range of other things. It is quite clear that before spending £20, £22, £24, £40, £44 or £47, people are going to say, "Before I spend the money I am going to take up the time of the council officer to say, is it worth it?".
Not only were the figures like that, but they went from 40 determinations in the year 1980 to 600 in 1981 and 840 in 1982. If the Enfield experience is a common experience with other authorities will the Minister appreciate that, although one gets the figures right in respect of the cost of the applications, it still means that by virtue of this system there is a burden placed upon council departments where they have to service situations of that kind?
Accepting that we are opposed to the principle of charging, suppose that instead of having a system which takes £20, to £22, to £24, the planning officer has said, as a suggestion, that it would be much better if in fact the increases went from £20 to £25, and £25 to £30. He is not asking that every year there would be an increase of £5, but he is asking for ease of understanding. Forty-four pounds was an awkward figure; £47 is an equally awkward figure. If one could say that the increases were going to be for two years and they went from £40 to £45, and there might be two more years when it went from £45 to £50, that might be easier to administer.
So far as we on this side of the House are concerned we wonder why the Minister decides on 7 per cent. Am I to understand the Minister to say that that was the best estimate for equalising the inflation rate over the past year or the next year? If 7 per cent. was simply

987
shot at a figure that could be borne, then we think there ought to be a better means of deciding on the uplift. So far as Members on this side of the House are concerned, we still repeat that we are opposed to the principle, but we are satisfied that in the generality local authorities are having to live with a situation which is costing them a considerable amount of money.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am fortunate enough to be the first to be able to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on taking up his duties on the Opposition Front Bench. We certainly look forward to hearing from him quite a lot in the future, as no doubt we shall.
These regulations are a considerable improvement. For the second time this afternoon I should like to congratulate the Government on the way in which they have dealt with this matter, on the whole. My colleagues were not in agreement with the idea of charging, any more than were the Opposition Front Bench. However, since we have this charging system I think that the Government have gone a long way to try to make it work and to make it suit the position.
One particular problem which they have not taken up, or at least not in the regulations—and I was not certain whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was referring to this in his opening speech—is the problem of fees for change of use applications. The fee for these is a flat fee. It does not seem in any way to affect the complexity of the various matters with which the authorities have to deal, It may deal with anything from the change of use of a small shop to the conversion of an enormous factory into a do-it-yourself store. A scale of charges would in this case surely be more equitable, and could be introduced without making the scheme unnecessarily complicated.
I realise that, as has just been said, there is a problem here of balancing fairness with simplicity, and obviously the answers to the particular problems which arise will not come down on the same side in any particular case. I should have thought that in this particular matter there was a little too much simplicity and a little too little fairness. Perhaps the Government will have another look at this before they change the rates again, as no doubt they will in due course. This is a highly complex matter. I do not think that this is the time to go into it in very great detail. The Government quite clearly are trying to get this right and have gone a long way towards doing so.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to thank him and the Government for their statement about the regulations for the disabled. I would say that they do need studying, and would thank him for what he has said.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords and to the noble Baroness who have spoken today. I must say that it was an exciting opportunity for me to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, from the
988
position he now occupies. I must say that if it is his normal wont to answer his own questions, then I shall have a very much easier life than I expected when I read of his previous experience in another place.
I am sorry to see that some noble Lords—the noble Lord opposite notwithstanding—are not yet reconciled to the principle of fees. As I said at the beginning, the charging of fees for planning applications is not in doubt. It is the law of the land and has been so since 1980. The debate today, as the noble Lord recognised, has nothing to do with changing that law but to do with the level of fees and the detailed provisions of the fees scheme.
We have today had an interesting short debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said, these are highly technical matters of planning law and procedure. If I do not get all the answers right, perhaps I may be allowed to write to noble Lords. Many of the points that were raised were given very' careful consideration during our review. I have explained why the new fees scheme takes the form that we propose and the reason why many of the interesting ideas and suggestions have not stood up to the scrutiny that we gave them. We are very much concerned to identify any further improvements in the scheme and to test them against the scheme's underlying principles. It was a totally new experience to evolve this particular scheme. It was bound to take a little time to get right. I am glad to say that we are making very great progress. I hope that ideas will continue to come to us from all those with an interest in the planning system.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, disliked not only the principle of the scheme (which, as I have said, we are not discussing) but in a sense the rationale behind the drawing up of the scheme—which I found extremely difficult because it is Government policy, and has been so since 1979, that it is right that users of any particular service, whether provided by local or central Government, should contribute in some way towards the cost incurred. In this case, as I have said, the sums of £70 million to £75 million are not inconsiderable.
Secondly, the fees are at a modest level, well short of processing costs, and there is no evidence that they act as a deterrent to development. Indeed, the noble Lord quoted figures which said that development was definitely going on. I found those figures extremely interesting. I would suggest that the noble Lord has a word with his noble friend Lady Birk, who thinks it an excellent idea that an informal approach should be made to the planning officer before the application is submitted. I can tell him that, in my view, at least, this is the reason why the formal application figures have gone up so substantially.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I would agree that the informal approach is an excellent idea. But the financial consequence and the costs of the council in providing officers for the informal consultation are a different thing. If a person is hesitant about whether he is going to need planning application or not, or, even more insidiously, he may want to avoid having to apply at all, then, of course, an hour of the council officer's time will satisfy him that he should or should not apply. At the end of the day, if he decides that he is not going to apply, there is no statistic

989
appearing anywhere, except for the hour of the council officer's time, which has to be paid for.
While on my feet, may I say to the Minister that if the philosophy is that anyone who uses a service should be expected to pay partly towards it, what about a service like housing? If an applicant for housing is going to use that service, is he expected to have to pay partly towards it? There is also the case of the applicant for the use of education facilities; that is, the child who is going to school from 5 to 11. If the philosophy is, in generality, that because you are going to use a service you are expected to pay for it, that is a dangerous precedent.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what I was trying to point out, in answer to the second part of the noble Lord's intervention, was that all these things are being looked at and nothing can be regarded as sacrosanct. That is as far as I was going at that moment. As far as the first part of his intervention goes, he has forgotten what I might call the opportunity cost—which is that if the application finally goes through and is a partially-charged-for application, there will be some saving in time. This will be balanced to some extent—although I take the noble Lord's point that it may well be that we have not got it right—by the fact that a preliminary investigation causes the potential applicant not to apply.
So far as the £13 million deficit is concerned, as I have said, this has been sorted out; but I am quite confident that should there be any small shortfall, or indeed any excess, this will be taken into account in the next year's rate support grant figure. The noble Lord spoke about the added complexities of parish councils. I fail to understand why it should be difficult to charge half the fee. It is just another stroke on a piece of paper. I would say that the Government had no such representations from the Association of District Councils. So far as the "free go" is concerned, in the new regulations this follows the same rules as in the existing ones. The noble Lord suggested block leaps (if I might so describe them) in fees from 75 to 80 or whatever it happens to be. I can just imagine the remarks that he would make were we to do it in a period of low inflation. He would wrap the argument round our necks in no time at all; so that I do not terribly approve of that suggestion.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke about charges for changes of use. I think there is no reasonable basis on which to devise a sliding scale because the individual changes are inevitably of a very disparate nature. There is no way in which we can focus upon particular points on a scale on which to slide. I will look into what the noble Lord has said and give him a more considered reply.
On behalf of my department and the Scottish Office, I welcome all sensible proposals for making the regulations better and fairer. While I hope it will not be necessary to promote new regulations in this House too often, I can undertake that all suggestions will be fairly considered. Before I depart with this set of orders, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the 7 per cent. about which he asked is our best estimate of inflation over the 17 months between the two sets of orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1983
5.20 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th October be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
5.21 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House sat until a quarter to two last night, and it has already had this Bill before it and passed it through all its stages during the last Parliament. The election supervened before it could get beyond First Reading in the other place. The Bill therefore fell and it has to be reintroduced into this Parliament if it is to become law. Because of the late sitting last night, and because the House already knows all about it—it is all on the file in Hansard— I shall be extremely brief in reintroducing it and I would appeal to my noble friends from all quarters of the House who are supporting the, Bill to be as brief as I know they want to be.
The Bill prohibits an atrocious practice which is customary in certain parts of Africa and West Asia and which has now appeared in this country. I will not harrow the House again by describing it. It is without any religious justification anywhere in the world, including the countries where it is endemic. It is a customary practice and no more.
The practice itself is clearly discouraged and disallowed by the World Health Organisation, so far as it is able to go, and there are programmes financed and helped by the WHO throughout the world to exterpate it by persuasion and education. This particular Bill, which of course applies only to the United Kingdom, has the backing of the following bodies: the British Medical Association; the Royal College of Nursing; the Royal College of Midwives; the National Council of Women; the National Federation of Women's Institutes; the Association of Mental Health Visitors; the Medical Women's Federation; the Anti-Slavery Society; the Roman Catholic Feminists; the Josephine Butler Society; the Minority Rights Group; and the Fawcett Society. The unreserved backing of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives is striking, and has been throughout.
It remains for me to say a word about the attitude of the other two relevant Royal colleges, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Royal College of Surgeons say, "This is not really our affair and we will take a back seat to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the matter". The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

991
have made a statement to the effect that the college gives its full support to any measures which will help to eradicate what it regards as a repugnant and unnecessary procedure.
The last time the Bill was going through the House the Royal College made known to me, as its sponsor, and to the Government—to the Ministry of Health, as their sponsoring department—certain reservations about the reporting procedures which were written into the Bill at that time. The Bill, as it was presented last time, required that all operations, as defined in the text of the Bill, would have to be the subject of a report by two medical practitioners. That would in fact have caught 8,000 or 10,000 perfectly legitimate operations, mainly for cancer and pre-cancerous conditions, and in view of the representations from the Government, and on the basis of what the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have said, I have reduced that in the Bill as it is now presented to a report by one general practitioner. So the operation would now be okay simply on the say-so of one general practitioner.
It may be that what follows in the rest of the Bill is capable of improvement: indeed it would be very strange if it were not. I will just remind the House extremely briefly of what is in it. Clause 1(1) says, "You must not perform this operation". Clause 1(2) lays down the penalties you will incur if you do. Clause 2(1) says that you may do it provided that it is for the physical health of the patient. Clause 2(2) says that it must also be done in a hospital or nursing home. Clause 3 says that the Secretary of State shall make regulations to provide for the opinion of the GP to be notified and recorded, and that he shall make penalties for failure to do that.
That is really all I have to say. I know, because the Minister of Health has been courteous enough to discuss his intentions with me, that the Government intend to promote amendments on the Committee stage of the Bill; and I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to tell the House whatever he thinks fit about what those amendments are likely to be. I will simply say, as I have told him, that I am more than willing to co-operate in putting these amendment to the House. It may be that I shall be able to recommend them all, but perhaps there are one or two where I would prefer to stand back and leave it to the judgment of the House as such as to what ought to be done. I beg to move that the Bill he now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Kennet.)
5.28 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for being late but I missed the cue on the monitor until it was rather late. I have not much to add to what was said on Second Reading on 21st April. I do not believe that there is anybody in either House of Parliament who does anything but detest the practice that is the subject of this Bill. However, there is one matter which I believe should be raised on our second time round, in discussing the principles of the Bill and the application of those principles. I should like to refer your Lordships to the
992
most forceful and very important speech made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the beginning of our Second Reading on 21st April. The noble and learned Lord had this to say at col. 676 of the Official Report, and I believe it is worthwhile repeating as a quotation. He said:
"Under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person shall he liable to imprisonment for life.".
He went on:
"Under Section 20 of the same Act, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years".
That was a very serious statement made by the head of our judiciary. He made it quite clear that he was speaking in his own capacity and that any such act would naturally go before the courts, which would have final judgment on it.
But he went on in the next paragraph to say with even greater force:
"I really must make it plain to the House and to the public that it is my solemn opinion that anybody who participates in this country in the excision of a clitoris is guilty of one or both of the offences which I have just read out, and will render himself, and anyone participating in such a procedure will render himself, liable to prosecution for an offence for which a private prosecution is available.".
I should like to extract those words "private prosecution". Why a private prosecution? If the noble and learned Lord's judgment is correct on this act, why should it be confined to a private prosecution? That is the first point that I should like the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to answer.
Then the noble and learned Lord went on to point out that, in the case of a minor under the age of 16, there is no possibility that consent is any defence at all. He continued to point out that it is not just the consent of the minor, but also that it would not be accepted as a defence to use the excuse that the parents had given consent. He concluded by saying:
"I must also add that I very much doubt whether the consent even of an adult is possible. There is a long, long history of English law, whereby the consent of an adult to a maim is not admissible as a defence, if a person inflicting the maim—which this certainly is—is charged with an offence against the person." [col. 677.]
The very simple question that I should like to ask the Government is: how does it come about that our leading judicial authority in Parliament and in the country can make those quite specific judgments—again, with the reservation that it is his own judgment—and yet, despite the fact that there has been public evidence that this offence has been committed, no police action has been taken, so far as I know, and no prosecution has either been made or is pending. In other words, despite the very strong and welcome words of the noble and learned Lord, it appears that the evidence that this practice has taken place within this country is not regarded by the authorities as sufficient for a prosecution. That is the only additional point that I have to make since we last discussed this Bill before the election. The other arguments do not need to be rehearsed.
I hope—the Government having now overcome the panic which they endured in the week-end before we

993
last discussed the Bill and having to use that as an excuse for not co-operating with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in the drafting of the Bill—that they are now able to come forward with the propositions which they promised they would do, in order to still the fears of, in particular, the medical profession. I trust that the Government can say to us tonight that they have now had an opportunity of giving their full support and authority to this Bill, so that we may pass it speedily through this House with unanimous consent, as an important social measure laying down the standards which must be achieved by anyone who is living in this country.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, this is a subject which I do not think your Lordships find attractive. In fact, when a film was shown in your Lordships' House before the Second Reading of the previous Bill, some of your Lordships could not stomach the sight of seeing young girls being mutilated in such a way. The cries of these young girls' anguish were heartrending. We discussed this subject fully in the last Session of Parliament and I think that the Bill was improved, but we now have in Parliament many new Members. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has again brought the matter of prohibiting female circumcision in Britain before your Lordships.
This matter must not be brushed under the carpet. All sorts of practices can and do take place when there is monetary profit to be made. Anyone without medical qualifications can perform an operation. Many surgeons who have worked in the parts of Africa where female circumcision is practised can relate stories of infections and long-lasting problems. The World Health Organisation has given full support to the campaign for the abolition of female circumcision, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
During the passage of the last Bill, I brought before your Lordships an amendment to include in the penalties for performing an illegal operation when the law is in force the choice of a prison sentence or a fine—a fine was the penalty in the original Bill before my amendment—or both a fine and a prison sentence. I am pleased that your Lordships agreed to that and that it is now in this present Bill. A fine would mean very little to a private practitioner dealing in this kind of practice. But the threat of a prison sentence would, I hope, stop anyone in this country from even contemplating performing such an operation unless an operation was necessary on medical grounds for the physical health of that person or for the rectification of abnormalities. This is written into the Bill which is before your Lordships, but perhaps there is a need for slight amendment at the Committee stage so that general practitioners and midwives are protected in their treatment of patients under their care in the community.
We live in a very mixed and complicated society and demands on our health service are numerous. Last Saturday, the Yorkshire Post printed an article about the wishes of the Community Relations Council. They are urging the Bradford Health Authority to meet the special needs of ethnic minorities. They want staff to understand and have training in racial and cultural awareness. Better understanding between groups is
994
always a good thing, so that people can live in harmony, but we must make it quite clear that this barbaric custom of female circumcision is not to be performed except for medical reasons. The only way to make this crystal clear is to have a simple Act of Parliament outlawing any practice of this sort.
I cannot see that private hospitals are written into the Bill. These are the very places in which this operation might take place. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, tells me that they are covered by the Registered Nursing Homes Act 1975. I should be happier if the words "independent hospitals and nursing homes" were written into the Bill. There might he some confusion as some private hospitals in this country are American, and I think that in the United States of America hospitals and nursing homes are defined separately.
We should not leave any stone unturned. I, too, hope that your Lordships will give this Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill a Second Reading, and that it will have a swift passage on to the statute book, after slight amendment.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to speak again on this important subject because, as I said previously, I believe it draws our attention to a matter of great medical and social concern. Speaking as a nurse and as a sociologist, I should like to repeat, in an abbreviated version of my previous contribution, my support for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in the reintroduction of the Bill.
The first point concerns definitions. The term "female circumcision" is generic, covering a range of procedures with degrees of mutilation ranging from the least traumatic (sometimes termed "sunna" circumcision) to the most radical, called "pharaonic" circumcision, or infibulation. The wording of the Bill effectively proscribes all forms of female circumcision. This is to be welcomed, because all the evidence suggests that there are no physical benefits to be gained from any of these practices—rather, there are numerous attendant risks. The health hazards associated with some or all of the procedures have been well documented by health care workers. I shall repeat them briefly, because they are so serious that they must be taken into account in our present deliberations.
First, there are the immediate and short-term physical complications, including haemorrhage, pain, shock, localised infection, septicaemia, difficulties with micturition and damage to adjacent tissue and organs. Then there are the long-term physical complications. They include chronic infection, development of abscesses, scar tissue and/or of cysts and neuromas, dysmennorhoea, dyspareunia and obstetric complications. Yet other secondary and long-term complications may also follow; for example, renal disease resulting from urinary tract infection. In addition to these physical ill-effects, psychological and especially psycho-sexual problems may result. The research evidence is less substantial here, partly because many of the women involved are naturally reluctant to speak on the subject and are influenced by the norms and values of their culture. Often that culture may advocate circumcision as desirable. However, the

995
physical mutilation resulting from circumcision in even its mildest form must be expected to have some adverse psyscho-sexual effects.
Despite these problems, female circumcision is still widely practised in more than 20 countries—in Africa, in Oman, South Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and among the Moslem populations of Indonesia and Malaysia. While it is impossible to estimate precisely the numbers of women involved, well informed sources claim that the order of magnitude is at the level of tens of millions. A small number of cases have recently been reported in Europe—in France and in the United Kingdom. Hence the significance, the timeliness and the importance of this Bill.
May I refer briefly to the reasons for circumcision, because a practice which is so widespread must have powerful social and cultural legitimation and be supported by many members of the communities involved. The reasons for this support for circumcision include beliefs that it is desirable because it is hygienic; because it prevents promiscuity; because it is in keeping with age-old tradition; and because it symbolises a girl's transition to adulthood. Also, sometimes, especially in Moslem communities, it may be carried out in the sincere but erroneous belief that it is demanded by Islamic faith.
It is perhaps relevant very briefly to reiterate that many of these beliefs are inconsistent in so far as they bear no relation to empirical reality. For example, there is no correlation between female circumcision and hygiene: rather the reverse, because it is so often associated with infection. With regard to the traditional association with the rite de passage into adulthood. this, too, is often wrong. It is anachronistic, because circumcision is often performed on girls who are so young that they cannot be seen as nearing adolescence. Finally, the belief that it is a religious requirement is inconsistent with the facts, because it is carried out by adherents of many faiths: Roman Catholics. Protestants, Copts and Animists—faiths which clearly do not require it.
Given these anomalies, it is important to explore other reasons for the perpetuation of this custom. The informative report on female circumcision by the minority rights group suggests several reasons, including the financial incentives for those who perform the operations; the influence of older women who have themselves been circumcised; the power of community pressure; and the suspicion that westerners are trying to eliminate traditional cultures. It is important to understand these reasons so that health educators in this country can take them into account if they are working with people who adhere to these cultures who might be subject to the influence.
Turning now, very briefly, to the case for action and legislation, given the complexity of the situation, attempts to bring about change must obviously be sensitive to the multiplicity of factors involved. Recent initiatives have consisted of two kinds of approach, legislative and educative. Several organisations have made very strong recommendations designed to try to eliminate the practice of female circumcision. I mention briefly four such initiatives. I will not repeat the detailed account of these initiatives which was
996
given in our previous debate, but those to which reference was made were, first, the World Health Organisation seminar in Khartoum in 1979; secondly, UNICEF's position on female circumcision in May 1979; thirdly, the Council of Representatives of the International Council of Nurses; and, fourthly, the Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom's strong support for this Bill.
I should like to conclude by referring briefly once again to two kinds of argument which I have heard in opposition to this Bill and to the whole idea of passing legislation designed to prohibit the practice of female circumcision in this country. First, there are those who argue that it is wrong to impose what they regard as "western values" on people from other cultures. Secondly, others claim that if the practice is made illegal it will merely be driven underground, performed in insanitary conditions, and be fraught with even more danger of complications.
As I argued previously, I do not believe that these arguments constitute grounds for opposing this Bill. On the first point, there are surely some cultural traditions which are so antithetical to human wellbeing that they cannot be regarded as sacrosanct. Cannibalism and the burning of widows are two examples. I would argue that the mutilation inherent in female circumcision could be seen in a similar light, especially as it is all too frequently carried out on small children who are not in a position to choose for themselves. On the second point—the danger that the practice will be driven underground—this is clearly a possibility. However, one may hope that it will be outweighed by the deterrent effect of the law.
I understand that in other countries where female circumcision is widely practised the symbolic effect of the passing of this law in this country will be helpful to them as a precedent. In fact, since speaking in the previous debate on this topic I have received letters of support from women in those countries endorsing this argument and supporting this Bill. I conclude by reiterating my strong support for the noble Lord. Lord Kennet, in his endeavours to bring his Bill through in this Session.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I am here for one very special purpose, which is to give as much praise as I can to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this Bill. I do not believe that even he realises what a boon it will be to women and how much women—particularly those from India and Africa—still suffer from these most ignoble and tragic practices.
In our last debate on this subject, I was sickened by the amount of slight hysteria and dishonesty which some women produced—which some of our women produced—about Indian women. They tried to make excuses for these ignorant and primitive Indian women, and I did not much like that. But now we have a Bill that will really make up for all the mistakes which have been made in the past. The truth is that it is an outrage to pass this Bill in this House—there is nothing to be said for it. I was appalled by the fact that English women speaking in our last debate tried to excuse the practices we were discussing. I did not like that at all.

997
I am absolutely thrilled that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has this wonderful Bill in this country. After all, we can be kind and welcome people from other countries, but we must not import primitive and ignorant cruelties and practices just because some other countries have them. It has been a pleasure to read this Bill and to learn how much we have been doing in order to get rid of some of the practices we have heard about.
We were pretty swamped by noble Lords talking about the National Health Service yesterday, but there seems absolutely no excuse to have female circumcision. It is a cruel and ignorant practice and there is nothing low enough that I can say about it. We should not allow it to be imported into this country. It is utterly wrong and it is cruel. They savage our wonderful National Health Service with these practices; they make attempts to save it when they start this sort of hanky-panky. I cannot praise the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, enough. He has done a wonderful thing for women in this country, and I hope in other countries where they are still so backward and where the women still have to cope with these terrible practices.
I started the day by feeling rather ill, but I insisted on coming here because I did not wish to miss this debate. It is so important to women—it could not be more important. A great deal of rubbish has been spoken. People went to Harley Street and were given ridiculously little treatment for £15—I know about this; I am not speaking "in the air". I could not believe that some of our women were on the side of those poor women from other countries who had to suffer so much from their men and from their own women. I could not believe that this was happening.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will continue to succeed with this Bill because a more cruel operation I do not know of—and I have actually done a little medicine in my time, although not as much as I wanted. I hope that today the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will go away feeling really proud and grand. It is, after all, enough that women from other countries can come and live in ours. We are doing very well by them in allowing them to live in this country. It is nice for them and it is nice of us to do it. But we do not have to import their kind of rules.
The point is that such people are not in a position to teach us anything about sexual behaviour. What have they to teach us about intimate sexual matters? Absolutely nothing. That is another plus for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—that we have rid ourselves of that aspect.
I am extremely happy about the Second Reading of this Bill. I wish the noble Lord all success. He has a large view of the human condition and there will be thousands of women who will bless him for the rest of their lives for what he has done to allow them to live in this country, to live freely, to do the right things, and not be subjected to cruel and stupid practices such as female circumcision. There is not one sentence that one can make in favour of that practice. It is evil from beginning to end and we should not touch it. That is all I want to say.
5.58 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am glad that it has been possible for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to introduce this Bill a second time. Having spoken in the previous Second Reading debate, I have only a little to say that I have not said before. In the meantime, I have been glad to have the comments of several African friends who were delighted by the principles of the Bill. However, they found our constitutional procedures difficult to understand in that the Bill did not become an Act the first time. I trust that this Bill will have a fair wind both here and in another place and will become an Act in due course.
In August of this year my husband was invited to the Second Congress of International Somali Studies in Hamburg. Although he was unable to attend, he received all the papers. Among them was a paper which was given by Dr. Mahdi Ali Dirie, who is a lecturer in obstetrics and gynaecology in the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery in Mogadishu. His paper was entitled, Prospects of Undertaking an Educational Programme Against Female Circumcision in Somalia. In it he recites all the medical reasons for a programme against female circumcision in a country in which almost all girls are circumcised in one form or another—this from the age of four to eight years in most cases. Also, no less than 92 per cent. suffer infibulation, which is the most severe form. He with others considers that this can only be overcome by consistent education of the women in his country. We must take seriously the opinion of African doctors with specialised knowledge of this practice.
Dr. Dirie is not alone, for the World Health Organisation has urged concerned countries to study and implement ways of stopping this harmful practice. As a result, a seminar sponsored by the World Health Organisation was held in the Sudan in 1979 at which the Eastern Mediterranean Region countries of the World Health Organisation participated. It was agreed that health education especially in this field was the most cherished goal.
For many centuries female circumcision was shrouded in secrecy and taboo, but recently health workers and social scientists concerned for the physical, psychological and moral well-being of women and children have brought it to light. In a documentary series entitled "Forty Minutes", BBC2 showed, on 3rd March this year, a film entitled, "Female Circumcision". It astonished many people in this country, not only laymen but doctors and nurses as well, who have admitted to me that they had never heard of it before. Perhaps we in this country need to be alerted to the dangers and suffering that follow this form of operation, particularly in its most extreme form. So I wish this Bill every success.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to say again that my noble friends and I on this side of the House warmly support this Bill and congratulate Lord Kennet on the initiative he has taken and all the work he has done, in consultation, to try to make this an acceptable Bill and an improvement on our earlier attempts. I agree with those speakers who have suggested that this need not be a long debate, because we did argue the principles very fully before. There are

999
just one or two points on which I hope the Minister can give us some guidance.
To begin with, I hope that the Minister is going to give the blessing of the Government to this Bill and try to find the time to ensure its speedy passage. I may be one of those who are looking forward to having a general election as early as possible, but I hope it will not be so soon that this Bill falls again.
The first question which I think would help the House goes back to an exchange in the House of Commons on 9th November 1982 (col. 132), which came soon after revelations in the Observer newspaper about this operation taking place in London. The Minister of Health said that he shared abhorrence of the practice. Then he said this:
"Unethical practices by doctors are a matter for the General Medical Council to consider, and we have written asking the Council what action, if any. it proposes to take over these allegations. We shall consider urgently, in the light of its reply, whether any additional steps are needed".
That was on 9th November 1982, and I am wondering whether the Minister has received a reply yet from the General Medical Council, what the reply was, and what steps we are urgently taking, as he promised in the House of Commons those many months ago.
I hope also that the Minister will be able to clear up some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. There does seem to be some scope for argument about the relevance of Section 18 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act in these conditions. I think one of the main difficulties is that that Act does not apply to Scotland, and I am sure we should all much regret any exclusion of Scotland because of the 1861 Act. It may well be time that that Act was looked at again.
Not only would it help the House to have that matter cleared up, but there does seem to he confusion outside the House. For instance, the GMC, with its Ethical Committee, would, one would have thought, take some responsibility for this. But I have a report from the Guardian of 3rd March 1983 reporting a meeting as follows:
"The Ethical Committee's private view was that the operation was abhorrent, but that only Parliament had the power to ban it."
That does suggest that the doctors do need this new legislation in order to proceed in the way that this House would wish.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the point of the penalties under Clause 3, and I have some sympathy with her doubts about whether a fine is adequate. I have a feeling that the kinds of doctors who might be tempted into this sort of shady illegality might be those who charge the highest fees and collect the most money, as often happened in the bad old days before the 1967 abortion law reform. But I would hope that a doctor who was fined under Clause 3 of this Bill would be automatically reported to the General Medical Council, which I hope would take the appropriate steps. After all, we have all known of doctors struck off for much less serious offences than the mutilation which is the subject of this Bill.
I am sure the whole House appreciated the well-informed contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and she has put the points so clearly that I want
1000
to save the time of the House by not repeating them. I am sure, too, that we are all very glad our friend Lady Gaitskell has come down here so bravely, because she was not well this morning. She has shown once again the strength of her convictions and her toughness; she puts a lot of other people to shame by coming and making such a forthright statement as she has done today.
Lady Kinloss has again given us some very special and very important information which we much appreciate. I can only hope that the Minister is going to be as co-operative as I know he wants to be, and that he will be able to persuade his colleagues—especially those who arrange the timetable of our business—to make sure that very soon there is adequate time for us to see this Bill on to the statute book.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, may I repeat what has been said in your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion: that is, that the Government share with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and those other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon the repugnance with which he views the practice of female circumcision. I hope that that satisfies to some extent the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. It is something that has no place in our society, and we would never wish it to become accepted among any part of our population. That, I believe, is a view shared also by those who speak for the minority communities in this country.
We cannot, of course, legislate for other countries, but we have through the World Health Organisation added our voice to encourage those who, through exhortation and education, are trying to eradicate these practices abroad. So I was encouraged to hear what my noble friend Lady Cox said about the possible effect on other countries of this Bill being passed in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is to be congratulated on again bringing forward such a Bill. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has already stated on the previous occasion, on 21st April, that the Government acknowledge the case for a firm statement in legislation that would put beyond doubt the illegality of the practice of female circumcision. I will not, therefore, take up your Lordships' time with descriptions of the law on this subject as it now stands. But the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, raised a question of legislation in regard to the remarks of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in April. I am afraid I do not think I can go very far in explaining what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on that occasion. What he said was said in his learned capacity, if I may put it that way. He said it as a matter of fact.
So far as private prosecutions are concerned—and I stand to be corrected by my noble and learned friend—I think the Director of Public Prosecutions could step in. A prosecution would not have to be a private prosecution in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. But this is a very technical and legal matter and I hope the noble Lord will understand that I am not in quite the same position as my noble and learned friend.

1001
Let me simply say that, subject to certain amendments which the Government feel are necessary, we support the principle of the Bill and hope that it will reach the statute book. The only point at issue, therefore, is how best the objectives of the Bill are to be achieved. The Government feel it essential that the Bill does not in any way impede operations which are legitimate and necessary to any aspect of a woman's health. I know the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will agree with me about this.
There are a number of operations, mentioned by the noble Lord, for cancerous, pre-cancerous and other conditions which must be undertaken where medically necessary. The Government would not wish the Bill to impinge in any way on such operations, nor to impose upon doctors any bureaucratic tasks in relation to operations that are and will continue to be medically necessary. Similarly, there are operations of what might be called a cosmetic nature, which may properly be undertaken but which are not required for the direct physical health of the woman. We are not convinced that these are completely covered by the wording of the Bill as it now stands.
We recognise the concern that many of your Lordships may feel if the exemptions are widened too far. We feel the Bill would be improved if specific provision were included to prohibit an operation on the grounds of a desire for it for ritual or customary reasons.
Finally, we are concerned that the restriction of legitimate operations to registered medical practitioners working in the National Health Service and registered private hospitals could leave the position of midwives in some doubt. It is part of their professional function, in both home and hospital deliveries, to undertake minor surgical procedures which might be prohibited by the Bill in its present form.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, asked about the status of independent hospitals under the Bill as it stands. I can tell her that in the context of the Bill a nursing home is a nursing home and in this country must comply with the law whether it is American financed or not. That point would be covered by the Bill and I hope the noble Baroness will accept what I say on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about the blessing of the Government. I hope I have made it clear that the Bill has the Government's blessing provided that it can be amended in Committee in the way I have broadly described to the House. As to the question of the danger of a general election, I do not think the noble Baroness need be in any particular fear of that as the result of the last election was perfectly satisfactory.
The noble Baroness also asked about the General Medical Council, which in the autumn of last year was requested to comment on the Bill. We received its comments in May of this year. The Council gave the clear view that it would deplore such operations, so it considers them to be unethical. The Council was concerned about the problem of drawing a dividing line between female circumcision and other surgery which did not arise from a strictly medical need, and I think that that is a point I covered earlier in my
1002
speech. The final point made by the noble Baroness relating to the legislation as described by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was covered by what I said earlier.
As I have said, what is needed is a clear statement of law to prohibit operations which have no medical justification, while not inhibiting or obstructing legitimate health care. If suitable changes can be made in this House, as I am sure they can, to meet the points I have raised, then the Government would have no reason to oppose the Bill in an amended form. To these ends the Government will be very happy to assist the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, with the drafting of suitable amendments.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he expand on the answer he gave to that part of my speech which referred to the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? If it is the case that the Director of Public Prosecutions can intervene under present law, why has he not done so?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that I am not in a position to speak with authority on the law in the same way as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. The fact remains that it is no good trying to prosecute someone if one does not know what has been done. I do not think we can take this argument much further as I would need to seek legal advice on this point. The noble and learned Lord was making a particular point in referring to excision of one part of the anatomy only. If the noble Lord looks that up he will see what was said. We understand that it was considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions but insufficient evidence was available to take action on the particular case to which the noble Lord refers.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, many valuable points have been made in this debate; many of them familiar, although not all. I am most grateful to all those who have spoken and delighted that the Bill, in a suitably amended form, is to get a fair wind from the Government.
There is one point only over which I should like to go back. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and was about the intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor last time. It is not for this House to consider possible interpretations of the 1861 Act. Nor is it for this House to consider the bringing, or not bringing, of prosecutions under a given piece of legislation. However, I should like to say that the extracts from the speech of the Lord Chancellor which were read out by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, might have given an impression to noble Lords who were not present at the time that the Lord Chancellor was against the introduction of this Bill on the ground that the operation was already illegal under existing law. May I correct that impression, if anyone did glean it. The noble Lord the Lord Chancellor was very careful to be neutral about the present Bill. Having said what he had to say—which was read out by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, this afternoon—he went on to say:

1003
"This may be an argument for the Bill or it may be an argument against the Bill".
I conclude by once again thanking everyone, and especially the Government for showing more of their hand this time. I hope that between us we shall make a piece of good law out of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Rent (Abolition of Control) Bill [H.L.]
6.18 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short and, indeed, a pithy Bill, and your Lordships may be tempted to think it is a sweeping Bill. In an almost literal sense it is, because in one way it is a product of the all-partyrepeal group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, which is going through the statute book bit by bit, not merely to look at obsolete statutes—after all, that is the function of the Law Commission and a job that it does efficiently and very well—but to look for areas of statute law where, in our opinion, there is either regulation for regulation's sake or the whole initial purpose of the legislation has become self-defeating.
Two examples will spring to mind of the group's initiatives where the group has already pressed its case in this House. One is the Bill presented by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, before she was promoted to the Front Bench, to repeal the Shop Acts, which has resulted in a committee of inquiry into the Shop Acts. The other is the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, to repeal the statute enforcing the monopoly of opticians.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him a point of fact at this stage? He refers to the all-party repeal group. It is something unknown to me, and I think it is important to the debate. Is this a committee established by the House of Lords or is it just an informal group of like-minded peers?
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. It is like the defence study group, in that it brings together people who are interested in a particular question. In this case it is the study of legislation where we think it has become self-defeating. The group has been going for some time, and includes noble Lords across the House.
This Bill on rents arises directly from a debate on housing in your Lordships' House which was of considerable interest and importance and which I had the privilege of initiating in the last Parliament on a Wednesday afternoon. In that debate we discussed the great changes that have occurred in housing since the last war, with the building of over eight million houses and flats in the past 30 years and the ever-growing shift to home ownership. If we leave various special categories out, about three out of five of what one might call ordinary households now own their own homes. The desirability of widespread home ownership is not a matter of party dispute. What is at issue is whether council tenants should be enabled to buy their houses, at what discount and in what circumstances. It is a matter of perfectly legitimate discussion. But the
1004
central principle of being in favour of home ownership is no longer a matter of dispute.
On this issue, and during over 30 years of council housing, I have been consistently radical. It seems to me that home ownership gives great power to the ndividual family—power to deal as it wishes with its own home; to sell it, to build up capital and to pass the capital on to the children. Those are all matters greatly prized by the vast majority of our fellow citizens. I am glad that not only are the Government also radical in this matter: I am delighted to say that so is the new leadership of the Labour Party.
There was also agreement in the debate that we had in the last Parliament that there will always be a need for a large rented sector for young people, people frequently on the move, elderly people, people who have other uses for their capital and, above all, very poor people. I shall come back to the question of the very poor. These are all people who at one time or another, or perhaps all the time, want to rent accommodation. In the land of the home owner, in New York City, few well-to-do people own their own apartments. André Meyer was a horrible man but one of the richest men in the world. In a book that I have read it states that he rented the top of the Carlyle Hotel when he escaped from occupied Germany, and just lived there.
Many people want to rent rather than to own for short or for long periods. There is no law of nature or social law that I know of that says that people ought to own the bricks and mortar in which they live. Of course, it is a very emotional subject. People who want to rent vary from university students who want accommodation for three academic years, through holiday tenants, to people who might want to rent for many years.
If I leave out of account for a moment the shorthold tenancy, there are two major types of tenancy. One is the council tenancy, which is a form of tenancy that is being reduced in number by selling off existing houses and through the relatively low rate of building of new council houses. The other is the private sector. In 1914, about 19 out of 20 flats and houses were privately rented. That proportion is now fewer than one in 10. It is one of the most radical social changes that this century has seen in the form of house and flat tenure.
Can we cast our minds back to the 1914–18 war? Prices rose sharply, and the standard of living fell. Rowntree's studies had shown that a major element in working-class expenditure, and therefore in working-class poverty, was rent. Accordingly, rents were frozen by Parliament. The war ended and there was a great housing boom in the 1920s and 1930s. Over five million people became home owners, but it left the private rented sector on one side, although a number of blocks of flats were built for letting, such as those that we see all round what are now becoming the inner suburbs of our cities. One often comes across them around the tube stations.
Came the 1939 war and the process of 1914 was repeated. There was a bit of liberalisation in 1957, as I shall mention later. In 1974 Tony Crosland brought furnished properties into the net, with catastrophic consequences. At that time I was a professor at Brunel University. We ceased to be able to find furnished

1005
accommodation for our students almost overnight. People were frightened of letting accommodation to people if they had security of tenure.
The position now in this country is that the rich and prosperous can rent property from private persons on any terms they mutually agree. Below a certain rateable value you cannot rent, except in the case of shortholds or new property specifically built for letting since 1980. Only chance will give people privately rented property if they are looking for somewhere to live unless they pay the exorbitant rents demanded in the so-called "bed and breakfast" furnished tenancies.
Three categories of people suffer from this circumstance, and two categories benefit. Of the two categories which benefit, there are, first, the lawyers. There is a class of solicitor who has grown rich on the Rent Acts, which are a legal jungle. A few solicitors in each town—solicitors' clerks most specifically—are experts on the whole paraphernalia. If my Bill went through unamended they would suffer, but I hope that their sufferings would be disregarded. The new public prosecution system may well give them more work.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, and in defence of my profession, which I love very dearly, may I say that it is not for reasons of economy or for their riches that many solicitors will hope that the noble Lord's Bill fails.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, the last thing on earth I want to do is to upset the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I think he would agree that the Rent Acts give a substantial volume of work to many solicitors.
The other category which benefits is that comprised of the people who are lucky enough to live in rent controlled property. They are rarely the original tenants, but they are their descendants. They enjoy a substantial benefit. If my Bill passes, in some circumstances their rents will probably rise. If they are brought to the poverty line—as many of them might be—they may be forced to turn to housing benefits. That is a matter with which I shall deal in the closing passages of my speech. We have to bear that category in mind as potential and important sufferers—as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, points out—from the change in the law which I am discussing.
I turn now to the beneficiaries. The first is the owner of the existing rent controlled house who would make a capital gain if he were able to raise the rent. This does happen. I suppose that we all know people who live in Islington, where the gentrification is going on. People buy a rent controlled house with an old lady in it, and they carefully and touchingly inquire after her health every time that they go to collect the rent. The moment the old lady dies, and if she has no daughter living with her, the house has a yellow door, the Guardian is delivered and the Trotskyists move into the newly-gentrified property, which rises enormously in value. Personally, I have some, but not very much, sympathy with the owners of these properties, because the properties have been bought over the past 30–odd years at knock-down prices, and in many respects the new owners are gambling on the ending of the tenancy of their properties.
My example shows, I think, that the supply of rented places dries up as houses fall vacant. That is
1006
undoubtedly the case from the fact that as a percentage of the total this type of property has dropped from over 90 per cent. to well under 10 per cent., and when such properties fall vacant they are sold to owner-occupiers. They are rarely let again.
So my second category of beneficiary from my legislation is the person who is looking for a place. He or she cannot find one, except by luck. He may find a grotty, furnished slum; but none of us I think would dare to let our own houses except to rich Arabs or diplomats whom we are absolutely certain will move out at the end of the tenancy. If we were to let our houses unfurnished with vacant possession, there would in effect be a capital loss of really very substantial proportions. Consequently, fewer and fewer people who want to get somewhere to rent can get anything except by turning to the council.
I shall quote an actual example. A tenant of a property, which he has rent free as it is a service tenancy, dies. His widow cannot afford to buy a house. There are no houses or flats for private tenancy, except furnished flats at £300 a month. Under the present law in order for the widow to get a council flat her husband's employer is forced to evict her, which causes untold distress and expense, so that she is homeless and the local authority is forced to house her. She jumps the queue before other people who also wish to have rented accommodation.
Why is this?—andhere I come to my third category of beneficiary of my Bill. I began by reminding the House that three-fifths of the nation are now house-owners. That is all very well and good. Subject only to the sanitary and planning laws, you can do what you like with your own house: beautify it, extend it, alter it, neglect it, sell it; but you cannot let it. Now, my Lords, let us suppose that you or I went to Australia for five years, and let us suppose that our employer offered to ship our furniture. We should have to sell our house here, because we could not let it, since if we did, we could never get it back. That is another actual example—of my own, as a matter of fact.
It is inescapable logic of house ownership that the right to let will in fact come about. But having come about, there will be very serious problems of transition, and I have no doubt that other speakers, and notably the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will concentrate on them. I hope, however, that they will not seek to refute the logic of the argument, because the logic of home ownership means that the right to let, and, once having let, to regain possession, is inescapable.
Lastly, I turn to the Government's position. There are many thoughtful Conservatives who share my concern at the problem of renting, but of course it is politically very hard to be part of a Government who are not only allegedly leaving most of the population dying in the streets because they are cutting the National Health Service, but are also putting them out there to die as well by repealing the Rent Acts. Therefore, I can guess to a certain extent what my noble friend's departmental brief will say. But I would stress that the reform of the housing market is an inevitability in the longer run, and that it is an all-party matter.
Perhaps I may say this to noble Lords: the aim of a political party—any political party—is to gain office,

1007
but to gain office in order to serve the people. A political party in office, especially one with as large a majority as the present one, urgently needs to refresh itself by looking beyond office to measures. This is an area that has been crying out for measures. The House of Commons Select Committee that studies housing said explicitly, on an all-party basis, that rent control was a major element in creating housing shortage. Yet it was in 1957 that the last major reforming measure was created by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor (then Mr. Henry Brooke). That began the process of rent decontrol by going down the scale; first, deregulating tenancies with high rateable values above a certain value, and then going down slice by slice. But the political will of my noble friend was not sustained by his successors until the 1980 Act, which exempted newly-built places for letting and the short-holds which have scarcely taken off.
The Labour party has always frustrated Tory measures by the threat of repeal of any legislation affecting tenancies. This is why one obviously has to ask: please will the Labour Party turn its mind to this subject? We are moving to a home ownership society, because certainly by the end of this Parliament three-quarters of the total of houses and flats will be owner-occupied, and I think that the Labour Party has now accepted that that is likely to be the pattern of society. I believe that in such a society some kind of power to let your own place when you want to move away, rather than have to sell it and then find somewhere else, is important. I earnestly hope that the Labour Party will think very carefully about that.
I hope that the Alliance will, too. In his important hook, Dr. Owen has embraced the social market philosophy, and in many respects Dr. Owen's views are important and relevant here. Therefore I hope that the Alliance will turn its serious attention to this matter. Certainly from past conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, I know that he has always thought that one of the major elements in any housing reform must be the paying of some attention to the Rent Acts.
Finally, I turn to what the level of rents might be in a free market. In the nature of things, it is absolutely impossible to say directly what will be the level. But, in his most perceptive speech on the Agricultural Holdings Bill on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that one cannot have a threefold rise in the level of prices, including money incomes, and expect frozen rents for farms. Clearly, that also applies to the normal rented home sector.
Therefore I can predict that freeing rents and tenures would in some cases lead to a substantial increase in supply and the emergence of a demand—a demand which at the moment is quite frustrated because there is nowhere for it to rent. I would judge that many rents would settle at something like the level of the financing cost of mortgages plus depreciation, which may well be below the actual mortgage repayment cost, with its element of capital repayment. Rents for bad houses would almost certainly go down, and those for good houses would probably go up.
I now turn to the question of the poor, which is of course central to the issue, because I do not think that anybody would defend rent control per se if it
1008
benefited only the rich or the middle income groups. It is because of the poor that there is this concern, and that is why it is such a highly emotional issue. We have the housing allowances system, which in principle should meet this need. I would strongly argue that, if there is a problem of compensation for the householder being inadequate, it needs attention. So undoubtedly in some respects housing allowances would go up.
On the other hand, tax relief on mortgages would go down, because fewer people would be driven into buying a house as the only means of getting hold of one. Furthermore, if there were a greater supply of unfurnished accommodation, there is no doubt that housing allowances at present paid to tenants of furnished property would substantially fall. Therefore I think it absolutely impossible to tell what would be the cost to the public purse of this kind of measure if it were followed.
I should like to thank the House for listening to me with such patience, and I look forward to an interesting debate.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Vaizey.)
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his speech, or at least two-thirds of it. It was very helpful. The noble Lord has a nice quirky sense of humour. I enjoy exchanging remarks and comments with him outside the Chamber, but I do not think this should extend to legislative measures. I can only believe that he has his tongue firmly in his cheek when he brings this Bill to the House. The very title of the Bill is a classic example of what George Orwell called "Newspeak". The Title of the Bill states it is a Bill that repeals legislation "restricting the freedom of tenants". But this Bill repeals legislation that protects the tenants, not restricts their freedom.
It is a Bill that reduces the rights of tenants. But that would sound a far less attractive proposition to put to the House. The Bill demonstrates an over-simplistic approach. It is monumentally irrelevant to those who are inadequately housed, a vast and growing number, unfortunately, in our society. It is irrelevant to those who are homeless. It is of no consequence in tackling the growing level of housing repair so graphically illustrated in the English House Conditions Survey. It does nothing to assist local authorities to reduce their ever-increasing waiting lists, and in no way will it help to provide decent facilities for the hundreds of thousands who, even today, lack basic facilities. Incidentally, it would also remove all the grounds under which landlords can obtain possession through the county court.
The Bill brashly implies that the dramatic decline in private letting can be attributed solely to Rent Act control. The evidence is quite contrary to this view. The House of Commons Environment Committee report on the private rented housing sector, issued in July last year—on which there was a majority of Conservatives—set out the reasons clearly in paragraph 9. This stated:
"There was widespread agreement in the evidence presented to the Committee that there were three main ways in which this decline

1009
had happened: (a) slum clearance, which resulted in the removal of older, bad quality accommodation from the stock; (b) transfer of existing properties to other tenures principally to owner-occupation, often by sale at a discount to the sitting tenant; and (c) concentration of new housing investment almost exclusively in other tenures, so that increasingly the demand for rented accommodation was met by local authorities and housing associations rather than by private landlords".
There was no mention by the Select Committee of the House of Commons that rent controls were a factor in the decline of the rented sector which has been going on through most of this century.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me, I think there is a misunderstanding. The last point that the noble Baroness read out refers to the concentration of new housing investment exclusively in other tenures. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, was pointing out that you would not get investment in rented property while you have the rent control Acts. I do not think that that is inconsistent with his view.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it may not be inconsistent with his view, but if a committee of the House of Commons, on which, I repeat, the Government party was in the majority, had come to the conclusion, from the evidence it heard and its own deliberations, that the rent control Acts were an important factor in the decline of the rented sector, it would most certainly have said so. The noble Lord can read the account himself, as I am sure he has done, and he will see that point. In fact, it does not. I do not think, with the greatest respect, that the noble Lord's intervention was valid.
The Bill implies, as the noble Lord himself stated, that the landlord and tenant could freely agree terms of letting to their mutual advantage. Frankly, this is nonsense. There is a grossly unequal relationship. You cannot have a contract or an agreement that works between two quite unequally balanced parties. The terms would be unfair because of the shortage of housing. This would be the lawyers' paradise, not what the noble Lord said, in trying to work out agreements and the litigation that would result.
I have a great deal of sympathy with many private landlords in the dilemma in which they find themselves, although it must be said that this sector has had and still has, unfortunately, more than its fair share of sharks and those who exploit rather than alleviate human misery. Because house prices have escalated dramatically, individual houses now represent sizeable investments. To get a return on that scale of investment means charging rents that are way beyond the means of most of those who want to rent or who have no alternative. Selling is a far more attractive proposition because of the subsidy system. Mortgage relief is for owner-occupiers. There is no comparative subsidy for the landlord.
When the noble Lord talks about the rent control Acts, I would remind him of the 1957 Act which went a considerable way towards reducing controls. This resulted in such chaos and the whole structure of Rachmanism, that changes had to be made by a Conservative Government in 1961. A £40,000 house, again, according to the Select Committee report, would have to be rented at £80 a week to get an annual
1010
return of 10 per cent., and that does not allow for all the costs that would have to be met. The Environment Committee reported a graphic illustration of how, through subsidy, it can be much cheaper to buy a house than to rent it. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 57:
"SHAC gave the example of the comparative costs to a landlord and owner-occupier of one-bedroomed flats in a converted property in London. The landlord would have to charge at least £58a week simply to cover his costs, while the same flat would cost £31 a week (net) to buy on a mortgage".
The problems of landlords, particularly those who rent their homes temporarily, have been met. Indeed, the 1974 Act, the 1977 Act and the 1980 Act made it easier for home owners to gain possession from tenants and there is specific provision for owners to rent during a period of absence. They are guaranteed possession on their return. I agree entirely that there are still problems of repossession since court proceedings can take a long time, but this is not a case for changing housing legislation—certainly not in this way. There is a case for speeding up procedures either in the county court or by setting up housing courts, which was also recommended by the Environment Committee in paragraph 95.
The noble Lord referred to shorthold. That was going to be part of the Government's answer to renting in the private sector. What happened? Shorthold has been a dismal failure. So that is not the answer. With the escalation in house prices, fewer and fewer investors will find it remotely attractive to invest in houses to rent. Again, this was recognised by the Environment Committee when it reported in paragraph 86:
"Because of their low incomes many tenants are unable to pay economic rents. Moreover, if rent levels were increased to the extent suggested by some witnesses, for example 20 to 30 per cent. of income, private tenants would he paying a proportion of income far greater than that normally paid by council tenants or owner occupiers over the long term".
That is, of course, when they pay off their mortgages. The paragraph continues:
"Furthermore, such higher rents would result in increased sharing, overcrowding and homelessness. These are the very problems that housing policy aims to alleviate".
Then:
"Given the low incomes of many tenants, rents, even at market levels, are not likely to provide the rates of return deemed necessary by landlords to halt the decline of the sector".
This has been graphically illustrated by the Government's hold new initiative under the 1980 Act to increase private renting through assured tenancies which are, of course, free from control. But this resulted in only four new properties being built, I think, by Abbey National, for rent outside any rent control, not because investors fear that a future Government may change the rules but because such investments are just not economic. The Rent Acts introduced order into an area of decline to help those disadvantaged people who need the help badly.
Pulling the rug out from under the private rented sector is not going to halt that decline. That is exactly what the Bill does: it is trying to pull the rug out from under the private rented sector. In fact, as I have shown, it will exacerbate the problem to an absolutely alarming degree. The social effects would be disastrous. People could be literally put on the streets. This applies not only to the poor. For example, it

1011
applies to mansion flats which are at present controlled up to £3,000 or £4,000 a year. They would also be included in the wide sweep of the noble Lords' Bill. It would create a framework in which no tenant would have any feeling of security or in practice any real security, because the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 would also be wiped off the statute book by the Bill. It is listed in the repeals on the back page.
I should like to quote from a letter I received yesterday from the Agricultural Workers' Union. It says:
"Prior to the enactment of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 evictions from tied cottages were commonplace, frequently unceremonious and invariably very distressing for the tenant and the tenant's family. The tied cottage system does, of course, exist in other industries but it was the farm worker who was constantly appearing in the county courts rather than workers from other industries prior to the 1976 Act.
"The recent cutbacks in council house building programmes and the disproportionately harsher effects of these cuts in rural areas means that there is considerable difficulty finding suitable alternative accommodation for even those rural workers legally dispossessed of their tied accommodation! Repeal of the 1976 Act would put impossible pressures on local authorities".
At this point I should like to introduce a personal note. I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment when that Bill went through this House. At the beginning many noble Lords opposite, particularly those who were farmers, felt very hostile to the measure. But with the coming into force of the Act and the way in which it worked out, I received letters even up to a year or so later, and had conversations with noble Lords who said that they were relieved to find that in fact it had worked out very much better than they thought it would.
So let us not lose sight of a crucial fact: people still want and need to rent. The Government have single-minded (and, I sometimes feel, obsessive) commitment to owner occupation. The Labour Party also supports owner occupation. As the noble Lord quite fairly said, this is an all-party commitment, and the people have shown that this is the way in which they feel. Indeed, it was a Labour Government which originally brought in option mortgages and have maintained their financial support whenever in office. Yet we have not lost sight of an equally important right: the right to rent. Many cannot own their own homes, however many inducements there may be. They are often the most disadvantaged in the community. Local authorities and housing associations try to provide for them, but Government cuts have severely restricted their efforts.
As far as the forecast cuts in public expenditure in the coming year are concerned, it looks as though the situation will certainly not get better but will unfortunately get worse. We have to accept that the bulk of rented accommodation must come from the public sector, whether it comes from local authorities, housing associations, co-operatives or whatever. That is evident from what is happening at present, and it is why things have gone so badly in the past.
Rented housing is badly needed for key groups like the young single homeless, single parent families, those from mental institutions who are returning to the community, the elderly and the handicapped. They are just part of a list which unfortunately is very much greater. It is up to Parliament and, therefore, this
1012
House to look to their needs and their basic right to rent, and not to debate, as we are tonight, a cut in controls which is based on a rigid, uncaring and rather careless dogma which would have the reverse effect to that which is apparently intended. Maybe it is not what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, really intends. If it is not, then he should come clean and say that what he wishes to see is the end of the private rented sector, for that would be the consequence of his proposals.
I hope that the noble Lord, having had his "go", is using this as a rather garish housing balloon from which the gas can now be expelled so that he and everybody else can come down to earth. It is not the custom of this House to vote against a Second Reading, particularly of a Private Member's Bill. This is a monstrous little measure, contrary to the principles not only of my party but contrary to all decent instincts and contrary to any serious discussion of housing policy. Indeed, we await with interest the speech on behalf of the Government, but I should have thought that the Bill was absolutely contrary to Government policy. If the noble Lord decides to press his Bill—and I am sure he is far too sensible to want to do that—my noble friends and I will be voting against it.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has made a spirited reply on behalf of the Labour Party, but I think she relies chiefly on assertion and emotion, with very little attempt to analyse the operation of the Rent Acts, which will be my chief concern. I believe that her reference to the Commons Committee was highly selective and misleading, as will emerge from fuller study.
For my part, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on bringing forward this Private Member's Bill to repeal the Rent Acts. As he explained, this initiative has been encouraged by the correctly called "non-party" repeal group, following the debate in the House of Lords which the noble Lord opened in June of last year.
In that debate, all 11 speakers were in perfect agreement about the widespread human misery inflicted, especially on young people, by the difficulty or impossibility of finding a place to rent. Even more remarkable, four of the half a dozen professional economists in your Lordships' House, speaking variously from the Conservative, Social Democrat and Cross-Benches, were found in rare unison emphasising that the major cause of the housing tragedy was rent control. I am now looking forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, to see whether his formidable economic wisdom will reinforce our case.
In the earlier debate, a notable contribution was made by my noble friend Lord Robbins from these Cross-Benches. Since he is still tragically laid low by a most grievous stroke, I should like to quote three sentences from his speech at that time. On the 23rd June, 1982, he said, at col. 1046:
"Rent control is essentially the fixing of maximum rents below the level which would prevail in a free market. Thus it affords an incentive to an excess of demand and a disincentive to spontaneous response of supply. This has occurred whenever and wherever it has been introduced".

1013
In a single sentence, it is a self-evident truism from elementary economic analysis that, in peace or war, in North or South, in houses or in ham sandwiches, if the price is held below the market clearing level, the resulting excess of demand over supply will create a shortage. This prediction from basic theory is amply borne out by all the evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, declared on that occasion.
More than 10 years ago at the Institute of Economic Affairs, with which I must declare some connection, we published a study entitled Verdict on Rent Control. It assembled researches by leading international economists, including three Nobel Laureates, on countries as varied as Austria, France, Sweden, the United States and Britain. The introduction was written by a foremost British authority, the late Professor Fred Pennace, who entitled his essay Fifty Years, Five Countries, One Lesson. The lesson was that rent control had done more harm than good by:
"perpetuating shortages, encouraging immobility, swamping consumer preferences, fostering dilapidation of the housing stocks and eroding production incentives, distorting land-use patterns and the allocation of scarce resources".
In every case that was studied, rent control was introduced as an emergency response to the disruption caused by war—after 1914 in Britain, Austria and France, and after 1940 in Sweden and the United States. Where control has been abolished, as in Sweden and most of the United States outside New York, the housing shortage has miraculously vanished. But wherever control has been perpetuated it has intensified the plight of people seeking even a temporary roof over their heads. For example, writing of rent control in Paris after 1945, the formidable, internationally famous philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel concluded:
"It is self-perpetuating and culminates in both the physical ruin of housing and the legal dispossession of the owners. The havoc wrought here is not the work of the enemy but of our own measures."
In the debate last year, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark gave a rather depressing glimpse of what might politely be called the ineffable innocence of Church thinking on these worldly matters. He reported his shock at seeing the urban devastation in New York, which he implied was due to inadequate public spending. In truth, that devastation is directly due to the usual ravages of rent control. My authority is a Professor Salins of the New York Department of Urban Affairs. In 1980 he published a book called The Ecology of Housing Destruction, with a more revealing sub-title, The Economic Effects of Public Intervention in the Housing Market. There he showed that public spending of more than 10,000 million dollars has not prevented the appalling deterioration and continuing destruction of the New York housing stock at the rate of 200,000 apartments every decade. In addition to reducing maintenance and construction, he showed that artificially depressed rents have increased demand and encouraged small families to occupy large premises. Professor Salins calls for the abolition of rent control and all its associated complexity of regulations. His conclusion on New York is, I believe, equally applicable to London and is as follows:
"There have been so many unsuccesful twists and turns along the path of well-intentioned tinkering that perhaps it is time to test the
1014
possibility that the generally reasonable incentives and disincentives of an unconstrained market might do a better job of allocating and conserving the housing stock."
I draw precisely the same moral from the First Report of the House of Commons Environment Committee, which was published last year. Paragraphs 100 and 101 confirm that a major cause of the decline of the rented sector, from seven million in 1945 to below two million today, was rent control and lifetime security of tenure. The impossibility of gaining repossession appears even more oppressive for small landlords than the derisory gross return of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. on their capital. Evidence was given there that in the decade since 1970 what are, in my view, fraudulently called "fair rents" doubled, while prices trebled and earnings quadrupled.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way—and I realise that it is getting late and do not want to elongate the debate—I think he must agree that the whole situation in New York is entirely different from that in London. In New York you have apartments with very high rents. They have much more atradition of renting than home ownership because of the difference in space. Secondly, has the noble Lord seen some of the properties that people are renting at the lower end of the scale? I imagine that he is talking about property around Manhattan and that sort of area. Certainly nowhere in his quotations from the report of the Environment Committee does it state that a repeal of the rent control Acts would improve or increase the quantity of rented housing. In fact, when the Committee discuss it—and the noble Lord has read it all, so I shall not go over it again—they point out what has happened and also what would happen if this was reversed—that it would not make the situation better, but in fact would make it worse.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, we must set some limits to the chewing over of these events, because the whole of Professor Salin's report on New York concentrates on places like the Bronx. He is concerned with the poor end of the market of New York and not with Manhattan.
Paragraph 101, in the House of Commons Committee report, to which I have referred, says that:
"Most witnesses argued that a revival of supply in the [rented] sector would require the removal or reduction of rent and security controls, together with a growth of confidence that future changes in legislation and government policy would not reimpose tighter controls."
Baroness Birk: My Lords, would the noble Lord mind reading the following sentence?
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, not at all. It reads:
"However, many felt that even this could not succeed and removal of controls would simply exacerbate housing stress without achieving acceptable housing conditions for those in the sector."
Baroness Birk: My Lords, thank you.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, they say that the majority of witnesses gave this view, and the witnesses included Shelter, the Small Landlords Association, Professor Donnison, Brighton Borough Council, the City of Manchester Council, Chestertons,

1015
and the Paddington Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations. I am establishing that no clear-cut view is handed down from the House of Commons report. It is all open for argument, and we propose to continue that argument.
From the evidence in that report I was surprised to discover that those who derive much satisfaction from baiting the landlords and working up prejudice in this matter argue that rents may be held low but the owners would gain from increased property values over a period of years. Yet in practice it is elsewhere acknowledged that a house with a sitting tenant might be lucky to fetch 20 per cent. of its market value with vacant possession. The whole point is that it is just such grotesquely falsified values that provide less scrupulous owners with a strong temptation to neglect repairs and get sitting tenants out.
Leaving aside the immorality of rent control, which I think should trouble its defenders rather more, the more down-to-earth economic question is whether repeal would bring more lettings onto the market at rents people can afford. I believe that clear evidence is provided by the orchestrated complaints about "loopholes", which take the form of holiday homes, company lettings, licences and shared occupancy in place of full tenancies. The success of these escape clauses in my view provides proof beyond any doubt whatever that, where the legalised theft of the Rent Acts can be avoided, new accommodation is forthcoming to relieve the distress of homelessness.
The best way to end the "loopholes" is simply to repeal these obstructive statutes by supporting the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in the Lobby. The way to help the poor is not to control rents any more than it is to control the price of food or clothing. To distort the price system obstructs supply and demand, as we see to our cost in a quite different connection with the common agricultural policy.
In conclusion, I would emphasise (the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, touched upon this) that poverty is the proper province of social policy and is best tackled by topping-up low incomes in some form. It should not be confused with general economic policy nor with policy on particular prices. Alas! it has to be said that for decades the Labour Party has won votes by confounding these wholly distinct issues to the detriment of both economic and social progress. It has further obstructed reform by reckless threats to restore or even to extend rent control, as we have been reminded that Mr. Crosland did—in my view, to his eternal shame—in 1974by destroying the market for rented premises. I take some encouragement that, now the Labour Party looks like being reduced to talking to itself and perhaps threatening one another, as special responsibility shifts to the Social Democrats as the alternative Government of the future. It only needs David Owen and the eagerly awaited Lord Grimond to teach the Liberals some economic sense for the repeal of rent control to open up the way for long-term reconstruction of the much needed market in rented accommodation.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, as a relative newcomer I am somewhat hesitant to address the House on the repeal of the Rent Acts. I know much less about housing than some of the other speakers; certainly far less than my noble friend Lord Vaizey, or the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. However, I feel impelled to support my noble friend in his courageous effort to advance this important and deserving, if forlorn, cause, recognising that my remarks are, at best, a modest contribution, an optional extra, to the eloquent arguments of others.
When rent control was first introduced in 1915 it was on cogent social, political, even military grounds. As a result of wartime inflation prices and rents were rising faster than service pay, and the families of fighting men were evicted because they could not pay higher rents. Sixty-eight years later, in totally different conditions, after Governments have built many millions of houses and spent many millions of pounds, rent control and security of tenure are still with us. Here is an outstanding example of a policy introduced for compelling reasons but maintained, and even extended, after it had outlived its usefulness and has indeed inflicted massive social and economic damage over many years.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but would he not also say something about Rachmanism? When rent controls and security of tenure were taken off for a few years, as the noble Lord will recollect, we had Rachmanism—that terrible word which has passed into the language—and they had to be put back.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Rachmanism could only flourish because of the existence of rent controls.
There is virtually no market in rented accommodation. For unfurnished accommodation it has disappeared, except for luxury flats for the very rich. The same applies largely to furnished accommodation because of the extension of control to furnished tenancies.
Why is there a housing shortage, but no shortage of food, clothes, or, for that matter, motor-cars and refrigerators? The chronic housing shortage is only another name for rent control. If a maximum price is fixed below market clearing levels, whether for eggs or for rented accommodation, an excess demand emerges by definition. If this excess demand is sustained by fixed rents you have a permanent shortage. I shall not insult your Lordships by labouring such an elementary truism. But there are certain pertinent specific characteristics of the rental market, some of which it may be instructive to note.
For instance, each house is unique in space and therefore differs, often radically, from every other house even if in other respects it appears closely similar. Again, people's circumstances and their requirements for accommodation differ greatly with the size of their families, their age, their place of work, their preferences and many other variants. So while it is relatively simple to ration staple foodstuffs on the basis of requirements from the viewpoint of both

1017
equity and efficiency, allocating dwellings is altogether different.
Many people, indeed most people, who want to move, or have to move, must either buy, even if they prefer to rent, or they have to seek council accommodation. The allocation of such accommodation inevitably involves much arbitrariness. Where is equity in the allocation of a council flat between a young woman with a child, an elderely person or couple, or a small family? Their widely different circumstances and requirements lead inevitably to allegations of bias in the allocation of dwellings, but notably of bias on ethnic grounds in Britain, and also on sectarian grounds in Ulster. Hence the Labour Party proposal reported in The Times of 21st July 1981 that local authorities should:
"monitor their allocation policies by maintaining ethnic records".
Local authority allocation of accommodation, therefore, inevitably exacerbates communal tension. Once again we see the baleful results of the needless politicisation of economic life.
Not surprisingly companies find it easier to rent accommodation than do families; and foreigners, who can be expected to leave, can rent much more easily than British people. In Marylebone, where I live, the few advertisements for letting are apt to specify companies, banks, or embassies as tenants. Some advertisements are in Arabic, which I cannot read, but they are unlikely to be addressed to British subjects.
The hardships are not confined to people who cannot find rented accommodation. They extend to luckless landlords whose savings have been eroded or lost through investment in dwellings to let. Such victims are often people of modest means, like the taxi-driver and the tailor I know who have lost their savings in this way. Before rent control, the purchase of a house or two for letting was a popular and prudent outlet for working-class savings in Scotland and the North of England. This outlet has disappeared. At the same time, people who would prefer to rent are forced to buy. Finally, the damage that rent control inflicts on families and on the economy by inhibiting the movement of people between jobs and places is too familiar to deserve more than mere mention.
Like controlled tenants, all Members of this House enjoy at least life tenancy of their seats. This imposes the obligation to be ready to support a politically unpopular cause, if we think this is in the best interests of our fellow men. The Bill of my noble friend is a conspicuous example of such a cause, and therefore of the corresponding obligation. I unhesitatingly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.18 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I appreciate that the words "abolition of controls relating to properties" are rather like a red rag to a bull to the party opposite. However, I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, before she says categorically that there is no way in which she and her party could support the Second Reading of this Bill, to consider for one moment what we are trying to drive out, or what I believe my noble friend is trying to drive out, and what I believe the Government might well support.
1018
This Bill as it stands is a vehicle to enable us to debate the provisions of the various Rent Acts in generality, in the hope that it will give rise to a Committee stage where we can then start to amend the more iniquitous parts of the various Rent Acts which have a genuinely bad effect, and operate detrimentally to many perfectly bona fide landlords. I believe that that is the purpose of this Bill. If we can give it a Second Reading and proceed on those lines, then we shall be able to get some good amendments down in the Rent Act proposals in this Bill.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Viscount has said, but it is not good enough to say that one should support something which is quite wrong. He described it as a vehicle, and then suggests that all the parts that we find distasteful can be changed at Committee stage. This is completely impossible. He must know this if he has read the Bill—and obviously he has—and sees the repeals. If he is arguing in favour of having just a discussion on it and perhaps coming forward with other recommendations, that is different; but we are discussing the Bill before us. We cannot be discussing whether we should give a Second Reading to something which may be turned on its head at Committee stage. That is not what we are discussing.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, l take the point of the noble Baroness, but, equally, I am quite sure that there are very few Members of your Lordships' House who could really go so far as to agree to abolish all the provisions of all the Acts referred to in this Bill. There are very many points in the various Rent Acts which are highly desirable and necessary. The establishment of rent officers, and that sort of thing, is entirely necessary. You have arbitrators to arbitrate on agricultural rents; and I think that it is perfectly correct to have rent officers to arbitrate between landlord and tenant if there is disagreement. I think that is perfectly fair.
The objectionable parts are the provisions whereby it makes it virtually impossible for a bona fide landlord, a private landlord, to get his property back, within reason, when he wants to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, reterred to "Rachmanism" as being-a dirty word in past history. I agree entirely with him. But the trouble is that in our enthusiasm to despatch Rachmanism to the depths of the deepest, darkest jungle we are tempted to throw out the baby with the bathwater; for not only did we throw out Mr. Rachman but we threw out also a great number of perfectly harmless landlords—if I may say that landlords can be harmless. We threw them out, too. This has been shown up to be highly inconvenient, to say the least, and, I think, wrong in principle.
With the necessary reduction—and, if I may say so, I refer to rural establishments, for I do not profess to know anything at all about metropolitan areas—of workforce on farms and estates in the country, and with smallholdings falling in, and so on, there has been a greater number of very attractive rural houses and farmhouses coming on to the market. These would have been available for renting by the owner as he found that he was not able to replace the agricultural or estate worker who had been in his employ because he had had to cut back.

1019
The position on that is that if he enters into an agreement with another person who wishes to be a tenant and they both agree between them that there is a property for letting and "you may have it for a period of (shall we say?) six years" at a fair rent of whatever it is—say, £10 or £15 a week—then it does not matter that the agreement has been drawn up legally by a solicitor and that the tenant has been represented legally, or advised. The fact of the matter is that the moment that person enters the house and pays his first rent in excess of two-thirds of the rateable value of the house, that man has absolute, totally-protected tenancy in that house for the rest of his life if he so wishes. This must be stupid.
I should have thought that it was highly desirable to get to the stage where owners can freely negotiate fair and reasonable agreements, duly witnessed, duly signed, and duly advised by legal people, and to let the tenants have as much advice and help as possible. When that agreement has been reached, then I believe that it is only right that it should be allowed to stand and not be superseded by some Act of Parliament which acts contrary to the interests of both landlord and tenant.
Therefore, what happens is that if the landlord finds himself in the position of being unable to let his property in a way that can be beneficial to him—and, after all, he has a right to have things beneficial to him, because it is his capital and his investment, and he is entitled to have a fair and reasonable return—then that property stands empty. Who benefits by that? Nobody!
Reference has been made to the local authorities and to the difficulties that they have of finding housing for people on their lists. Yes, indeed, they do; but it is not very helpful to the local authorities if they can see around them numerous empty houses which are not being occupied for the very reasons that I have shown. Furthermore, the authorities, or some of them, understandably set to work to impose rates on unoccupied properties so that the landlord is then faced with the expense of maintaining his house and having to pay rates on it, and getting no income there from. It seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory situation. Fortunately, we have recently passed an Act relating to shorthold tenancies, to which I believe reference has been made this afternoon. There, again, while going some way to alleviate this problem, it is still highly unsatisfactory.
I shall quote, if I may, from personal experience. I probably have at the moment four or five houses occupied by shorthold tenants. They are farming people, they are awfully nice, they are terribly happy, and they pay a fair rent, agreed between us. But if that tenancy is renewed more than once, then that property falls under the Rent Act 1977 (I believe) and it becomes a protected tenancy. This means, in effect, that there is a perfectly decent person living in one's house at a fair rent, he has his tenancy renewed once and, after that, he has to vacate the house; otherwise, I would lose control of the availability of repossession. I think that this is most unfair. I have had this happen to me on more than one occasion. I have had to ask the person to leave and I have had to have somebody else to come in. This seems to me to be most
1020
unsatisfactory, and nobody regrets it more than I do.
I think that there are areas of these Rent Acts which do need looking at and tidying up so as to try to help the tenants as well as helping the landlord. Therefore, I hope that the House will give my noble friend's Bill a Second Reading so that we can proceed in the way that I suggested in my opening remarks.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest, albeit a technical one. I happen to let a number of houses and cottages, but I am happy to let them at less than the market rate for what might be termed conservationist reasons, if that does not sound priggish. In other words, I prefer to let them to village people at a so-called fair rent rather than let them to commuters who may be willing and able to pay the full market rent which, of course, is generally higher, and sometimes considerably higher. So this Bill, if it becomes law, would scarcely affect my position one way or the other.
Most landlords, whether private or institutional, cannot afford to adopt this policy. After all, the so-called fair rents represent an average return of less than 2 per cent. on the capital value of the property, which is clearly ridiculous. This is why the pool of privately-rented accommodation is declining remorselessly year after year. It will go on dwindling virtually to extinction unless this Government start to do something about it.
Surely, no unbiased person can doubt the need of a pool of accommodation to let. I was interested to read a few months ago an article by the right honourable friend of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, in The Times, in which he cogently questioned the Government's apparent belief that 100 per cent. home ownership is the panacea for all Britain's housing problems: the noble Baroness made much the same point. I think that the noble Baroness is right on this point, as was Mr. Kaufman, which makes it all the more regrettable that the Labour party as a whole is apparently ignorant of the full implications of the law of supply and demand as expounded so eloquently just now by my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross.
To return to the issue of renting versus buying: as I pointed out in a debate on the Housing Bill during the last Parliament, it is not a great deal of use allowing an unemployed shipyard worker in, say, Cathcart to buy his council house at a discount. If he is offered a job in Britain's equivalent of the "sun belt", in other words, the area around Bracknell and Reading, he would be unlikely to be able to take it up. Either he would be unable to find a buyer for his house in the less fashionable part of Glasgow or, should he manage to sell it, it would realise less than one-third of the price of an equivalent house in Berkshire.
A larger pool of houses available for letting would not perhaps totally overcome this problem, but it would certainly provide a great deal more flexibility and would help with the mobility of labour, which we all agree is necessary for Britain's economic recovery. It is noteworthy—is it not?—that in many countries richer than our own, notably Switzerland and West Germany, the proportion of houseowners is much

1021
lower than in the United Kingdom. Conversely, in many countries much poorer than our own—notably some of the Eastern bloc countries—the proportion of home owners is much higher than in this country. There is therefore no correlation between the degree of home ownership and the degree of national wealth, whether it be measured by GNP or by any other criterion. Indeed, there are some who would claim that the excessive fiscal incentives to home ownership and home improvements given by all Governments since the war—and especially Conservative Governments—have been in part responsible for starving British industry of the capital investment needed for modernisation and expansion.
It might be argued by some, and certainly it has been argued by the Labour Party, that this Bill goes too far and that the problem could be solved by "tinkering" with the fair rent provisions. Undoubtedly some improvements could be made here. Wages are raised annually; salaries are raised annually; and of course repair costs go up annually: so why should not rents go up annually also? If it is objected that this would throw too much of a burden on overworked rent officers, then at least rents should be raised annually in line with the retail price index, as an interim measure.
Then again, in the Second Reading debate on the Agricultural Holdings Bill earlier this week speaker after speaker emphasised that the agricultural landlord was less interested in maximising his rent than in finding and retaining a good and responsible tenant. Exactly the same considerations motivate the small private landlord, who is generally happy to accept a good tenant at a moderate rent, possibly below the highest rent he could obtain in the open market. But the corollary is that the good landlord must be able to get rid of a bad or irresponsible tenant much more easily than he can at present—a tenant who keeps the house like a pig sty (a house, after all, that the tenant may wish his son or daughter to inherit in due course), the tenant who wrecks fixtures and fittings, or who plays his record-player at full blast at two in the morning, or the person who does not pay his or her rent. At present eviction procedures are far too cumbersome and expensive, and it is almost impossible to reclaim unpaid rent in such circumstances. I have no doubt that these two measures alone would bring more property on to the market—but not enough. This is why the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, is so important.
I can anticipate one argument which may be raised against this in another part of the House. It is concerned with accommodation in London. Britain is after all a tax haven—not for Britons but for people from overseas. It is also one of the safer places in the world for wealthy people to live in. There are fewer kidnappings, fewer muggings and fewer political assassinations than in virtually any other capital city in Europe, North America and certainly in South America. As a consequence, there are huge numbers of overseas people buying property in London: Arabs, Iranians, Greeks, Italians, Nigerians and of course Hong Kong Chinese, to whom we owe special consideration at this critical time. There is one well-known estate agency which sells one-third of its property to people from overseas.
1022
Many of these people come from countries where very little or no tax is payable, either income or capital taxes, and consequently they have money almost coming out of their ears. They can afford to pay the earth, and often do, for houses or flats, whether purchased or rented. This, of course, has a ripple effect in sending up the prices of more modest property all over London and in the London suburbs. I wonder whether the law of supply and demand can function properly in such circumstances. If not, perhaps some exception to decontrol might have to be made for the London area alone.
There is one other prerequisite for effective decontrol. At the moment the taxpayer subsidises the house buyer, the taxpayer subsidises the council tenant; but the landlord subsidises the private tenant: I have a feeling that the noble Baroness, by implication, agrees with this. If the landlord is no longer to subsidise the private tenant then the taxpayer must do so, whether by means of tax relief on rent paid or by some variation of the option mortgage scheme suitably adapted, or in some other fashion, so as to put the private tenant on an equal footing with the council tenant or the house buyer.
All these qualifications and provisos demonstrate how important it is to discuss this Bill in Committee. Decontrol, with its enormous potential long-term benefits to the country at large must be discussed openly and not swept under the carpet any longer. For that reason I urge your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I rise to speak in sympathy with my noble friend's Bill because it contains a number of the radical changes which I myself would have wished to see enacted by the party which I support when it returned to power four years ago. Then would have been the time to liberate the private landlord and his tenant, to allow time to demonstrate again that responsible contractual freedom can be made to work. Nevertheless, now may not be too late.
I propose to address myself to but one of the radical proposals which my noble friend's Bill encompasses: the abrogation of the three-generation hereditary Rent Act statutory tenancy. Such tenancies can run for three generations, as can an agricultural tenancy, and much more easily. A child need only have resided with the parent tenant for the six months prior to the parent's death in order to claim a statutory tenancy for his life after the death. It is perhaps by a happy chance that your Lordships have this week discussed the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, because that Bill and my noble friend's Bill are both directed to sweeping aside fossilising legislation and creating a climate in which farms in the one case and homes in the other are again freely available to be rented.
One of the two arms of the machinery by which the Government propose to conjure up new agricultural holdings for letting is the giving of confidence to landowners by doing away with the three-generation agricultural tenancy. So, whatever other view my noble friend on the Front Bench may express about the Bill when he comes to reply, I hope that your Lordships may hear that the succession provisions of

1023
Rent Act legislation providing for three generations in succession are seen as inherently unsatisfactory.
I should like briefly to refer to the Agricultural Holdings Bill to throw some light on the Rent Acts. Your Lordships will know that if a young unmarried farmer took a tenancy in 1975 he then acquired under the 1976 Act rights of security for his unborn issue to the second generation. The 1976 Act acted retrospectively against his landlord, but that Act is not to be reversed under the Agricultural Holdings Bill, as I understand it. For it seems that is thought to introduce retrospective legislation against the unborn son—for in the example I am inventing the farmer is still unmarried. The effect of only abolishing the three-generation succession in respct of tenancies entered into after the passing of the Act will be to create the potential for three separate and divisive anomalies between pre- 1976 Act tenancies, post-1976 Act tenancies and post-1983 Bill tenancies.
So I say to your Lordships that, as regards the Rent Acts, the statutory succession rights of later generations should go, and should go in respect of all tenancies. Only those tenants who have already succeeded should be protected by the principle that retrospective legislation is bad legislation. I support my noble friend's Bill and wish it a Second Reading because, on balance, I consider that to pass the Bill would be better than to leave the law as it stands.
7.41 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I very greatly suspect that the Government draftsman would not find the terms of this Bill wholly congenial. But there is a really major principle involved in it and I should like to speak to that for one moment.
We have raised quite enormously the standard of living in this country in this century. This has been greatly due to home ownership which has been very much extended. Quite frankly, it is the work of building societies and it has nothing to do with the mass of Housing Acts which have passed through Parliament over and over again, and which have contained a great deal of heat and fury, which is not always the best basis for economic development.
We are in the position that owner-occupation is going forward extremely well. Local government houses have served an extremely useful purpose and will long be wanted, particularly for older people. I have no doubt about that. But the weak part of the situation in this country is rented property. Rented property is an essential element of our society and it is gradually being killed by the mass of legislation which is going through.
I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Harris that we have made a mistake in using rented property for social purposes. That is wrong. Rented property should be given a free market on its own basis, and the social problems, which I accept are severe and must be dealt with, should not be used to turn the whole element of rented property upside down. I particularly ask the Government to look at this.
1024
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is afraid that the rents will be too high. But if they are too high nobody will rent a house, so nobody will build a house, although I expect that some clever builders will find houses which can be rented. But in present circumstances there will be no houses at all to rent, and then we shall not need to worry about them. As the noble Baroness said, it is easier today to buy a house than to rent one. That is an absurd position and it is one which merely impedes the economic development of this country. If necessary, I shall vote for this Bill, because it is of national importance that the Government realise that they must take action to open up a rented market of some kind or another.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I have recently been on the same side as the noble Earl on the subject of housing, and I know that he has a great deal of compassion as well as common sense. But how does he propose to deal with people who cannot afford what he might consider to be a moderate rent? Is he prepared to tell the Government that they should increase public expenditure on house building in the public sector, so that people of lower means can afford to rent a house and live in it? Otherwise, they will be entirely squeezed out and the situation will get much worse.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, the noble Baroness realises quite well that poverty is a separate question from housing and should be dealt with by social legislation. If you told ICI to operate a social policy rather than a profit policy, they would go bankrupt in no time. The housing market should be able to work on its own and, where there is hardship and severity, that should be dealt with as a social problem. That is the point I am making and it is quite wrong to upset the whole market by turning it into a form of social subsidy.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, I have been listening to this debate and was not intending to intervene. I do not know very much about the subject, except that I was poor. As I listened to a stinkingly rich Labour Front Bench, I remembered what Bernard Shaw used to say. Solicitors, lawyers, landlords on that Bench know more about what the poor need than the poor themselves know. I agreed so much with what the noble Earl has just said. Okay, when we are poor, deal with us, help us, as a matter of social service, but do not deny us housing. What I do not think the noble Baroness understands, and what I do not think any lawyers or solicitors understand, is that we will not rent a house or a flat unless it is within our means and, at the moment, it is not. Properties are not being offered for let. I wish that the Labour Party would get hold of the point that they are denying to our people what they want, which is the ability to rent.
I shall give my vote to the Second Reading of this Bill just because it might open up the whole argument. Whether it is good in the end, whether it will come out quite as it goes into the sausage-machine, I do not know. But I want the argument opened up and I want the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who, after all, is frightfully rich, to understand what some of us who are not frightfully rich understand—
Lord Underhill: You are better off than I am.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is in the same situation as I am, except, of course, that he has a rather bigger pension than I have. So he is a little better off than I am. I know exactly what his pension is and he is a bit better off than I am. But neither of us is quite in the class of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is overestimating. Furthermore, this debate is about housing. The noble Lord has said that he will support the Bill, which I do not think has to do with anybody's income. Unfortunately he is as wrong about my financial status as he is about the Bill.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, if the noble Baroness really wants to challenge me about her situation and that of Mr. Ellis Birk, I will be challenged. She is exceedingly and, by my standards, quite stinkingly rich, and I suggest to her that she does not challenge me on that. She is in the millionaire class.
Baroness Birk: Do not be so silly.
Lord George-Brown: I am not being silly. The noble Baroness is very rich. I would advise her to leave that alone. We are talking about poor people who need to rent flats in London and I think that they will be helped by passing this Bill. They will not be helped if we refuse it a passage. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is another landlord. The Labour Front Bench is now made up of landlords, solicitors and rich people. Could somebody speak for poor people? I, as an SDP member, am happy to speak for poor people and I consider that we ought to pass the Bill.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I find myself in some embarrassment at the end of this debate, not because of what the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has just said, but because two hours ago or thereabouts I made a speech in your Lordships' House in which I said that the principle was not at issue. We were talking about details. Here, with the greatest respect, it is the other way round and I hope that I do not get myself too muddled.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Vaizey for giving this House the opportunity to discuss a subject upon which feelings run very strongly—the private rented sector. It is the first time that the subject has been debated in this House since the last general election. I also recognise my noble friend's close interest in the subject. As he mentioned, the debate on housing policy in this House in June of last year was prompted by his Motion calling attention to the difficulties created by current legislation affecting the relationship of landlord and tenant. Much of that debate centred around the situation that now exists in the private rented sector—as, indeed, has this.
At this point I should say that it is with very much regret that my noble friend Lord Bellwin, who has vast experience in this field and who served on the Francis Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Rent Acts, is not able to be with us today.
1026
I have listened with great interest to the points which have been made during the course of the debate. But when I say that the debate is about principle, I mean that I do not intend to answer at this stage the detailed points which have been raised. If by the time I have made my speech noble Lords feel that it would be in the interests of the House that I should do so, I shall be very happy to comply. However, I should like to pick up one point that was made by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. He said that this is a marvellous opportunity to go into Committee and look at areas which need to be looked at. May I remind my noble friend that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, we are debating the Bill in front of us as it stands. If we were to follow his ideas, as he would have us do, we should be in Committee for weeks. He knows, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk knows with his long experience of this House, that this is not the way we operate. Speaking now as a representative of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I would say that in my opinion—and, I am sure, in his—this is not the way that the House should be treated.
I must begin by stressing the importance this Government attach to this particular sector of the housing market. I know that much has been made of the decline in the number of homes available for private renting and I know that this is one of the considerations which my noble friend took into account when formulating the Bill before us today. But let me remind the House—a point touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—how important a part the private rented sector still plays in the housing market. As recently as 1981, as the latest Census information shows, 11 per cent. of English households—some 19 million households in all—fell within the private rented sector. And the comparable figures for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland confirm that private renting is still a significant force in the United Kingdom as a whole. Altogether, we are talking of 22 million households, out of a total of 21 million households in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk was obviously bearing this point in mind when he spoke, but he went on to say that the private rented sector was the weak link in the Government's housing policy. I did not see a smile on the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, at that point, but she might well have wondered to herself, as she has on other occasions out loud, whether in fact the Government have a housing policy.
Whatever policy is decided upon with regard to the private rented sector, it has to take these figures into account. But as my noble friend Lord Vaizey also reminded us, the sector is particularly important for certain groups of people who, for varying reasons, do not wish or cannot buy their own homes and are not housed in the public sector—particularly, as we have heard, the elderly, the young and those who need to remain highly mobile.
For these reasons, and for others which will I hope become apparent, this Government are fully committed to the private rented sector. We recognise that it has a vital role to play and that this role will and must continue in the future. I should therefore like to make it quite clear that our commitment is a continuing one, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to reaffirm that commitment today.

1027
The Government are not insensitive to the problems which exist in the private rented sector. To demonstrate this, I should like to spend just a few moments reminding the House of our efforts and achievements in this field since the previous Administration took office in 1979. The situation then was that the Rent Acts, by conferring lifetime security of tenure on tenants and up to two successors, were deterring landlords from letting and were leading to a decline in the role of the private rented sector in meeting housing need—a fact referred to by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. That is why, in the Housing Act 1980, we introduced a number of important measures designed to remove disincentives to letting and therefore encouraging expansion in the private rented sector—measures, incidentally, which my noble friend Lord Vaizey poured a considerable amount of cold water upon in his introductory speech.
One of the most significant of these—my noble friend mentioned it briefly, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, though, I felt, with a rather jaundiced view—was the introduction of shorthold, under which non-resident landlords are able to let for a fixed term if they wish, provided that certain conditions have been met. The 1980 Act also made it quicker and easier for resident landlords to regain possession of the part of their homes that they have let. My noble friend Lord Vaizey suggested that anybody contemplating a stay abroad would be unable to let their home during their absence for fear of never getting it back again. With respect, this is simply not so. The 1980 Act made significant changes to safeguard the ability of temporarily absent owner-occupiers who let their homes to regain possession, and to do so speedily. Providing owner-occupiers let under Case 11 of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977, they can claim "mandatory" possession. This means that the court must grant possession in appropriate circumstances —for example, when the landlord wants to return to his house and live in his own property.
The Act also made a number of changes to the rent registration system, including a reduction in the period before which a rent can normally be reviewed from three years to two. The procedures for the registration of fair rents were simplified and the provisions regarding the payment of rent arrears strengthened.
My noble friend did not mention another form of tenancy to emerge from the Housing Act 1980—assured tenancies. The response to the assured tenancies scheme has been most encouraging. So far, well over 100 bodies have been approved to let property on assured tenancies outside the Rent Acts, and new applications continue to arrive. I see great opportunities for this scheme and wish to see it continue to grow. It serves a valuable purpose in helping to meet the market which undoubtedly exists for good quality housing for rent, and it does so on a basis that offers a real incentive for fresh long-term investment in privately rented accommodation.
The Housing Act 1980 applies only to England and Wales, but the Government's initiatives in the private rented sector do not stop there. In Scotland, broadly similar legislation has brought about a simplification of arrangements for private renting. In Northern Ireland we have recently introduced shorthold by
1028
means of the 1983 housing order, and since the introduction of the 1978 rent order there have been five annual reviews of rent levels, leading to far more realistic increases in those rent levels. Through the housing order we have brought about changes in the administration of the rent order, following a review of the working of the order. The arrangements governing the improvement grant system in Northern Ireland have also been strengthened to provide further incentives to private renting.
I readily admit—a point made by the noble Baroness—that the impact of these measures has so far been limited. For one thing, it is too early to make any final judgments about new initiatives, such as shorthold and the assured tenancy scheme, although the first signs are encouraging. More disturbingly, the destructive attitude of the party opposite, particularly their threat to abolish shorthold if they ever regain office, has, I believe, discouraged many lettings in the private rented sector which might otherwise have expanded the sector. One might have hoped that the Labour Party's 1983 manifesto would reveal a more enlightened attitude. That hope would have been in vain. The threat to repeal shorthold was trotted out once again, together with a package of measures imposing even more restrictions on private landlords. For some inescapable reason—inescapable, at least, to me—this was then topped up during the campaign with a commitment to an immediate one year rent freeze. Little wonder that the electorate so decisively rejected that manifesto on 9th June.
To say that the Bill before us today goes in the opposite direction to the Labour Party's approach to the private rented sector is, I suppose, something of an understatement. The Bill seeks to remove all controls upon private renting. This will be achieved by repealing all the legislation listed in the schedule to the Bill. There are, of course, a number of technical defects in the schedule, but I do not think that I need go into them at this moment. My noble friend made the general intention of his Bill perfectly clear.
The Government have some sympathy with the points of view which have been expressed by my noble friend, by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and by other noble Lords during the course of this debate. But perhaps I might remind the House of a speech which my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made at this year's Conservative Party conference. He said something to the effect that the long period of legislation designed principally to protect tenants had dried up the supply of the very accommodation which in some parts of the country is desperately needed. He reckoned that successive Governments had succeeded unwittingly in injuring precisely those whom they were trying to protect.
Having recognised the problem (which everyone in the House today has) the question is: what should be done about it? My noble friend's Bill is certainly one approach, but it is, I submit, an extreme one, and its effect would be far-reaching. It would remove all protection on rents and security from all tenants to whom the Rent Acts apply. It is not a course of action that should be embarked upon lightly, and the Government would need strong convincing that to move in one bound to a totally free market represented

1029
the right way of tackling the complex issues of the private rented sector.
When he spoke at Blackpool, my honourable friend said that he would be re-examining the private rented sector and reviewing all present legislation to see whether it can be improved. He did so in a way that made it perfectly clear to me and to others of us in that hall who were listening that he intended to adopt a fair approach. He was determined that in our policy we must ensure that tenants can still feel secure in their homes and get a fair deal for the rents that they pay: but, equally, that landlords must have the confidence to continue letting and, it is to be hoped, increase their lettings.
But the result of such a review would of course need primary legislation and a considerable slice of Government time. I cannot say today what the outcome of the Government's current look at the private rented sector legislation will be. The issues are complex and require careful consideration; but I would ask the House, in considering its attitude to my noble friend's Bill, to exercise patience and to remember that the Government have this whole area under review.
At the very beginning of my speech I referred to the words of my noble Friend Lord Mountgarret, and perhaps this is the appropriate moment, as I finish my speech, to return to the main point, as I see it. The purposes of Private Members' Bills in this House are many and varied, and I know that I do not have to elaborate on that subject today. I do feel, however, that the House has had a very useful Second Reading debate at a most opportune time in view of my honourable friend's intentions to study this whole problem.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Vaizey that the situation in the private rented sector is far from perfect, and I have listened with great interest to the views expressed in our debate. I trust that my noble friend will be guided by the Government's general intention of giving fair treatment to the landlord as well as the tenant, and will not press for the adoption of such a dramatic approach as is implicit in this Bill—which, I say again, is the one subject we are debating this evening.
The views of my noble friend and of other noble Lords have been fully aired today, and I would ask my noble friend to consider most carefully whether, to coin a phrase, the right approach would be to treat this discussion as a Short Debate and not to press for a Second Reading of his Bill tonight, but to withdraw it now. In the unlikely event—and I hope that it is an unlikely event—that this matter comes to a vote, I will not, therefore, feel able to join my noble friend Lord Vaizey in the Division Lobby.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, ours has been an interesting debate and I will not follow the usual winding-up procedure of going through each speech in great detail. I must, However, refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Not being her Inland Revenue inspector, I am not as expert as perhaps I might be on the subject, but in the first of the noble Baroness's five speeches this evening she argued that this measure was monumentally irrelevant. I believe we had hoped that
1030
the achievement of a new leadership for the Labour Party under two very interesting and sensible people in the House of Commons would have led to some attempt to use the next five years to rethink some of the basic questions which come before Parliament. Personally, I found all the noble Baroness's speeches monumentally irrelevant—and, I will say why if I may, without going into the details of the House of Commons Select Committee report which seems to have formed so large a part of the debate.
First, there is no doubt at all that if it were possible for home owners to let their houses the supply would rise dramatically. The central point which I argued in my speech and which I hope will figure very prominently in my honourable friend's thought processes as he addresses himself to this question is that as the number of home owners rises in society the number of occasions on which those home owners would wish to let their own property to other people for short or long periods will increase. This has been true in every other society in the world where there is no rent restriction of the very onerous type that we have. In the growth of other forms of tenure (mostly home ownership) and the fact that, as I understand it, only four houses have been built for rent under the provisions of the 1980 Act so far—and this is 1983—one is absolutely reinforcing the point made so eloquently by many of your Lordships.
The second point I wish to make concerns the noble Baroness's statement that the law of contract is incredibly inequitable as between a rich person and a poor person. But when one goes into Sainsbury's or Marks and Spencer's one is dealing with huge concerns owned by people whose income tax inspectors would doubtless speak very interestingly about the amounts of money those companies make. But do we feel oppressed? We enter into a contract to buy commodities from them, and they have been major architects of the rise in ordinary people's standards of living.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I did not really wish to interrupt the noble Lord again, but he cannot really compare going into Sainsbury's or any other shop with housing. The reason why it is inequitable is because there is such a shortage of housing; it is not a choice between one soup or another.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will contain herself from making a sixth speech this evening, there would of course be an acute shortage of kippers—you would have to go into Sainsbury's and bribe the checkout girl to get you some kippers—if the law said that the price of kippers should be the same as it was in 1915. If the noble Baroness, despite her intelligence, beauty, cleverness and wit, cannot appreciate that point at this stage in the evening, I somewhat despair. What a view she has of her fellow citizens!
It is also interesting that every reference to a tenant is to somebody absolutely on the brink of destitution. My Lords, the people who want to rent accommodation are precisely people like us, people in ordinary jobs, in ordinary occupations, who earn ordinary incomes, who want to get somewhere to live. At the moment the only people who can rent accommo

1031
dation, other than from the council, as was eloquently pointed out, are rich Arabs and diplomats, people who live in the posher areas of London, Regent's Park and so on. It is just not possible to argue to the contrary. Lord Hams of High Cross really did hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that in the last housing debate and in this debate every single economist in the place saw that obvious truth, and, were Lord Roberthall here tonight, judging from his contribution to the debate we had in June 1982, 1 have no doubt that he would say now what he said then.
These Acts were conceived in wartime shortages. They have now become a vested interest which one declining political party feels it needs to back because it gets votes. The disappointing aspect of my noble friend's otherwise extremely amiable and comprehensive reply to the debate—his statement of the Government's position—was that even in so handsome a position all he can say is that they will hold the matter under review. My Lords, I quite frankly do not feel that that is good enough. The fear of Rachmanism, as was pointed out so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Bauer, arose precisely because the houses were not decontrolled. Rachman's game was to push the people out because they were protected. The law did not protect them adequately, nor does it now. That is why there is so much work for liberal-minded solicitors like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who interrupted me earlier.
My Lords, I do hope that the House will support me in the Lobbies on this Bill.
8.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a second time?
Their Lordships divided.

Division no. 1

CONTENTS

Bauer, L.

Monson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Morris, L.

Croft, L.

Rugby, L.

Ferrier, L.

Spens, L.

George-Brown, L.

Vaizev, L. [Teller.]

Harris of High Cross, L.[Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54 I declare the Question not decided, and the debate thereon stands adjourned.

Non-Oil Visible Exports
8.21 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to stimulate non-oil visible exports.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Question on the Order Paper because of the
1032
increasingly serious trends underlying the overall balance-of-payments position. On the face of it, we are doing quite well in the current balance with a surplus of £6½ billion in 1981 and a surplus of £5½ billion in 1982. There is the prospect of a further surplus this year although it will be considerably lower, perhaps £1½billion or less. But this satisfactory overall position conceals a very serious underlying prospect and in order to identify that it is necessary to analyse the figures. I have been helped in this by information, provided by the Department of Trade and Industry, which is in addition to that published in the normal returns.
If one takes the first nine months of this year we shall have earned, overall on our balance of payments, £568 million. That is the net balance and compares with £3,008 million for last year. Therefore, that has gone down quite substantially. If one then looks at the invisible balance it will be seen that this year we have earned some £1,800 million compared with about £2,000 million at the same time last year—more or less in line.
Here we should pay tribute to those who build up this invisible balance, because in gross terms it is very large indeed—about £30 billion. But the costs arising abroad due to defence and other commitments which have to be met reduce this to about £2 billion or £3 billion annually. That is a very important contribution to our balance of payments.
Much the most striking aspect of the balance of payments in recent years has been, of course, the increasing amount we have earned from North Sea oil. In the nine months of last year we earned £2.8 billion. This year it has gone up to £4.8 billion. So there is another £2 billion out of that. The problem of the North Sea, as we all know, is that it is a limited resource and figures provided by the Government in answer to a Question in another place suggest that the peak level of earnings from the North Sea could well come in 1985 or 1986. That is practically tomorrow. From then on, although there will continue to be earnings from oil for many years, the likelihood is that it will be on a diminishing scale.
I would now like to turn to the real nub of the issue; that is, the massive deficiency that has built up this year on our non-oil visibles. At the present time—that is, on the nine months figures—it stands at no less than a deficiency of £6 billion compared with less than £2 billion last year. If one looks within that figure it will be seen that, as has historically happened in this country, we have run a deficiency on food and beverages. We do not produce enough for our own needs. Moreover, we always have a deficiency on basic materials. But historically we have been able to pay for those things that we have to import by what we have earned on manufactures and on invisibles.
Invisibles are still showing us a benefit, but it is most regrettable to note that for the first time since 1931, according to information provided by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in response to a question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, who is to speak later, we are running a very substantial deficit on manufactures. In fact, it is rather horrifying because for the first nine months of 1982 the surplus earned on manufactures was £1.8 billion. For the first nine months of 1983 the

1033
deficit on our manufactured balance of trade is practically the same: namely, £1¾ billion.
It does not take much imagination to consider what could happen if this sort of situation continues on manufactures, or perhaps even gets worse, and at the same time the benefit we have derived, and are deriving, from the oil balance diminishes. I am afraid that the prospect that that opens up is that, within a very limited period of time, we could be back into a chronic balance-of-payments deficiency. We all know what that means: the tightening of the belt; the loans from the IMF; the stringent conditions we would have to observe and the reduction in living standards. That is, of course, one possibility. I am with all those who hope that it will never happen. But the importance of this debate tonight is to make it quite clear that this could be on the cards and that the positive results in our overall balance of payments masks this potentially very serious situation.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will he replying and I would at this late hour like to lighten his task by suggesting certain measures which I believe should now be taken to try to deal with this situation. I think it would be improvident in the extreme not to be taking measures to deal with the situation, with these possible difficulties ahead of us.
Obviously, in order to compete more effectively with our manufactured goods exports we need to be as productive as possible. According to all the evidence, productivity has undoubtedly risen in British industry in recent years. But the nature of, and the reason for, that improvement in productivity is very largely that less efficient capacity has been cut out and very little of it, or relatively little, has been due to new investment. In fact, investment performance in British industry has gone down year by year. The Economist in a recent article calculated that investment in manufacturing industry has fallen in Britain by no less than 33 per cent. between 1979 and 1982. It states in this same article dated 3rd September that, "Britain has increased its productivity by sacking redundant workers and not by installing new machines".
We have come to the stage when we have to start installing new machines. We have to do that in ways which provide more of a stimulus and an inducement for industrialists to invest. This point was made repeatedly at the recent annual meeting in Glasgow of the Confederation of British Industry, which wants to see a climate which is more conducive to investment. That can be achieved by reducing interest rates, which at present in this country stand 40 per cent. higher than in Germany and 80 per cent. higher than in Japan. We are strongly in competition with both those countries. It must be done by reducing other imposts such as the national insurance surcharge and unduly high local rates.
These moves should be accompanied by a major increase in investment in the infrastructure. This has been referred to repeatedly in recent debates. Increasing investment in the infrastructure has a considerable relevance to exporting more effectively. Had the industries which have been adversely affected by the diminution in investment in the infrastructure—notably the construction and heavy engineering industries—had a sufficient home base,
1034
they could have competed with greater strength abroad for the opportunities which are coming forward rather more plentifully now that the world economy is recovering. We have to take a close look at the whole investment situation in industry not only for wider economic reasons but for export reasons also.
The second aspect of the problem is the exchange rate. It does not matter how productive industry is. If the exchange rate is over-valued it cannot sell its goods abroad. In recent years we have suffered by becoming a petro-currency. The fantastic swings that we noticed in the value of the currency a couple of years ago caused enormous harm to our export effort. The uncertainty of the currency, and its relatively high standing even now in relation to our competitive position, is one of the major factors leading to the difficulties that we are experiencing in our visible balance of trade. There is to be a debate on this subject on Monday, when the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, will be introducing a Motion on the whole question of the monetary situation. I hope that the occasion will be used to consider what should be done to make sure that we have an exchange rate which is not only related to our competitive position and would help us to compete more abroad but which would be a good deal more stable in the future than it has been in the past.
The third matter to which we should turn our attention in trying to build up again our positive balance in visibles other than oil is import substitution. That is the other side of the coin of the balance of payments. Looking at the figures for manufactures, it is interesting to see that what has happened so far this year is not that our export earnings have gone down—on the contrary, they have continued to go up—but that we have suffered a very much more substantial increase in imports. The consumer boom which took place some months ago is still continuing to some degree, but I am afraid that it did what it has done ever since the war in this country. Instead of absorbing more goods produced here it has tended to suck in more from abroad.
I would relate that situation partly back to our inadequate investment. The size and capability of British industry does not seem to be there to meet the increase in demand. We need to stimulate competitive import substitution by such means as were described so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Sieff of Brimpton, in a recent debate in this Chamber. The organisations represented by the nationalised industries have made great progress in this field. I was personally involved in this not only in the Coal Board but in presiding over the grouping of nationalised industries to ensure that we stimulated through our very considerable purchasing power the maximum possible competitive development of our suppliers. We are talking here of a combined purchasing power for the nationalised industries alone of something of the order of £10 billion. In their direct purchasing if the Government and the larger enterprises in the private sector were to pursue this line—as some are doing—this could have a dramatic impact on the import situation and also have a good pay-off in creating a much more effective export operation. If we can sell competitively at home, we can sell competitively abroad as well.
I turn finally to export services and in particular to the British Overseas Trade Board with which I was connected for a number of years. I pay tribute to the way in which it operates. I recall that it was difficult to get it going in the early days in 1972 when I first joined it. It is a combination of Government services on the one hand and industrialists and others, including some trade union representatives, on the other. It has worked well and some very effective services have been established, such as the help given to British enterprises to exhibit abroad, the inward and outward trade missions and, above all in my opinion, the export intelligence service. Regrettably in the past few years, at a time when we needed to deploy every possible effort to expand our exports, this service, along with all other items of Government expenditure, has been cut back. It is worth noting that in the last annual report of the British Overseas Trade Board its then chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, drew attention to this. He said that if further cuts were made it would reduce substantially the contribution which these highly developed and skilled services could render.
Another aspect of these cuts concerns me very greatly. During the time that I spent trying to stimulate exports I visited many of our posts abroad. Those missions were getting more and more attuned to helping with the export drive. One way in which they did this was by collecting information on business available abroad and filtering it through the export intelligence service so that the people concerned in this country would get, on a selective basis, what was of interest to them. I am told that this service is diminishing because of the reduction in the staffs doing this work in our missions abroad and particularly the locally recruited staff. I may say that these are the very best people to collect and ferret out this information—the locals in the countries concerned. I regard as something that badly needs to be put right that these cuts should have been applied in such an apparently unselective way. We must recognise that in this business of exporting a certain skill is required. A skilled team was built up and unfortunately it is now being diminished.
I have identified what I consider to be one of the most serious potential problems that we face in this country. It is important to identify these things in good time so that we can do something about them. I have made a few suggestions about what I believe should be done. But we have only a very short time at our disposal for this debate, and I do not believe that it is enough just to leave the question there so far as this House is concerned. Therefore I should like to propose that this would be a proper subject for a wide-ranging inquiry by a Select Committee on overseas trade which, with all the undoubted skill and objectivity which this House deploys in these matters, could identify the nature of the problem more clearly, come forward with many more proposals as to how it should be dealt with, and give rise to a more searching and comprehensive debate than we have time for this evening.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has done the House a great service in
1036
putting down this Question to the Government and giving us the opportunity of debating one of the central issues which will determine the standard and character of life in this country for the rest of this century and into the 21st century. I think that the first thing that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who is to wind up, has to do in answering the debate is to explain why those who are characterised by his party as the wealth-producers of the country, those who are constantly criticising the restrictive practices of the trade unions, those who are blaming the trade union movement for the decline in the economy of this country, are so markedly absent from the Benches behind him. Not a single Conservative Bank-Bencher considers it to be of sufficient importance to debate the very subject which relates to that which has provided for them the capital which they so generously supply to the party of which the noble Lord is a member.
Where are all the businessmen who are constantly preaching to us about the evils of the trade union movement and the virtues of the Government's economy policy? Why are they not here to explain why, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has pointed out, for the first time since 1931 there has been a deficit in manufactures? And that was only a conditional answer. The Minister was not really sure whether it was 1931 or 1913; he was not sure whether the figures were reversed. According to my information, it is the first time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there has been in manufacturing industry a deficit as between exports and imports. Perhaps since I asked my question two days ago the Minister has found out which year it was, and whether in fact there was such a year.
I should make one reservation regarding what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said. He has removed any necessity for me to go through the figures which he has detailed so ably. But I was a little worried when he began to introduce the subject of import substitution, and I shall explain why. I imagine that my interpretation of what he was saying is incorrect, and I have no doubt that, if the flow of my argument is found to misrepresent him, he will intervene. I shall gladly give way. In this country there is a myth—a myth which I tried to tackle in debate only last week, but which still persists, and which I hope the Government themselves will participate in laying for all time. It is the myth that the imports which we have seen sucked in by the 7 per cent. increase in consumer spending during this year are imports from the poorer countries of the world, the developing countries.
I shall take again, as I have done previously, the classic case of textiles. If we are going to build up the new economy of this country, certainly it must be accepted that the nature of manufacturing may well have to change; that there will be required a training system which is very expensive and which calls for the spending of considerable capital on higher education, which the present Government appear to be unwilling to provide. There will have to be greater labour mobility, and there will have to be much more Government investment in new industries. If I take the case of textiles, it is because it has always been used as the stereotyped instance to show how textile imports into this country have been putting textile workers in

1037
Britain out of jobs and closing down mills: this is simply untrue. I have constantly given the figures, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them tonight.
Let me point out to the House that last March the British Textile Confederation published a booklet entitled, A Plan of Action. The booklet appealed to the Government for greater investment in the textile industry, and it pointed out that 7 per cent. of the manufacturing output of Britain is in textiles, and that the textile industry is the third biggest exporter and employs half a million people.
The booklet went on to state that the trend in imports of textiles is expected to increase and that exports and consumption will stagnate. But where are these imports coming from? They are coming mainly from the EEC. They are coming from the developed world, not the developing world. I have previously given figures to show how, during the lifetime of the Conservative Administration since 1979, the proportion of textile imports from the developing world has declined and the proportion of textile imports from the developed world—in other words, from our competitors—has steadily increased.
What does that mean? Let us take the case of the multifibre arrangement, which restricts imports by various means—but which certainly restricts imports from the developing world and therefore prevents them from developing their manufacturing base, which has always been, in all countries, first of all in textiles. I agree that the multifibre arrangement goes back to 1974, and I hope that the noble Lord will not waste time in making that point. But, those imports having been restricted through the multifibre arrangement, what has happened? The imports from the EEC have jumped from 47 per cent. to 64 per cent. in four years; and these are just our competitors.
I know that there is a problem. I know that there is the problem of changing the character of manufacturing industry. I know that there is the problem of labour mobility and the development of new industries. In some ways—and I am sure that the noble Lord will be surprised at this—I can give an encouraging sign. Let us take one instance. Let us take the case of Acorn, the Cambridge-based group which launched the electron home computer at a very cheap price; I think £199. What has Acorn done? It has risen within one year between 1981 and 1982 from a turnover of nothing to a turnover of £42 million a year. Last year, turnover rose to £100 million a year. What is interesting about Acorn is that it really has depended upon Government support, partly in subsidies, because it qualifies under the Department of Industry, but even more importantly, by having a domestic base on which to build from the foundations. This wide consumer base here is the foundation stone from which it can extend its activities into exports.
This is the Japanese type of industrial policy—of Government aid for the development of new industries on the domestic base with the encouragement to advance from the domestic base to the export base. What have the Government done about this? Incidentally, I might say that there is one catch about Acorn. It is a Cambridge based group but it makes its famous computer, the electron, in Malaysia. That is another issue which we do not have time to
1038
discuss tonight but which is certainly worth taking note of.
What have the Government done in this situation to change the manufacturing character of this country to face the future rather than to moan about the past? What have they done to stem the effects of their own monetarist policy, their own fiscal policy and their own employment, or unemployment, policy? What they have done so far as I can see is, first, as I have said so often in the House, to reduce overseas aid by about 20 per cent. I am not going to take this up now because I know that no Government Minister will answer. I have asked many of them. Not one is prepared to face it. I am not going to argue that reduced aid in itself reduces employment here. I believe that it does. I believe that it can be proved that it does, but the Government will not admit so. What reduced aid does do is to reduce the type of infrastructure and encouragement in the developing world that could provide the kind of market in which British exports could find new homes.
The reduction in aid is damming the stream that could be flowing. I give two short instances. In November 1978, I was in the State Department in Washington talking to some of the African experts there. What were they talking about? They were talking about the change in the attitude of the Government of Guinea under President Sékou Touré, who had just broken away from the monopoly into which he had been originally forced by the cold shouldering of the West, breaking away from the monopoly of Soviet domination and opening up his markets, his economy and his political life to the rest of the world. The State Department had a top level delegation at his conference. The French were there, and a French State visit took place shortly afterwards. The Japanese were there. The Germans were there. The Italians were there. Where were we? We sent an ambassador from Dakar in Senegal, who did not stay for the conference and who never even met President Sékou Touré. Yet it is potentially one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. Here was an opportunity, and here has been an opportunity ever since. As the noble Lord may know, I have constantly been asking questions of the Government as to what they are going to do about the potential value both to Guinea and to Britain of economic initiatives within that country which I know that President Sékou Touré would welcome from Britain.
The other example is the straightforward example of Zambia. How on earth can Zambia buy British goods? Look at the price of copper! The price of copper has dropped during that last three months by something like £150 per tonne. The price of copper today at just over £900 a tonne is less than the cost of production. So how does Zambia accumulate the foreign reserves to buy British goods? How can British goods be exported to Zambia unless the Zambians are enabled to sell to us? This is the vicious circle which the Government so far have refused to face. What are they doing now? Not only are they reducing aid but they are also saying that they intend to reduce their contribution to the International Development Agency. That agency provides to Britain twice as much in its contracts as our contributions to the agency. In other words, it is an investment for us and

1039
the Government are cutting it. Does this make any sense?
As I mentioned last week, we have seen just this year, first, a battle between the Treasury and the Department of Trade in which the Treasury was trying to cut down the expenditure, and therefore the investment, of the Department of Trade—investment that is essential and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, points out, the CBI itself says is essential for the preservation and development of British industry.
What have the Government done about the Export Credits Guarantee Department? Surely, this is today so out of date that it is really playing no part in what it was originally designed to do—that is, to help this country export and to give Government backing to those who were going out, as the noble Lord said, seeking British exports. It is no good the Government saying, as they have been saying so piously for four years now, that when things improve we shall go back to increasing aid. The idea that we cannot get out of the Government's mind is that aid is charity and not investment. Let the Government ask themselves: why are we cutting aid in Britain whereas Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands have all exceeded the 0.7 per cent. target and some of them now have exceeded the 1 per cent. target? All I can say is that the Labour Party has gone on record saying that the next Labour Government will achieve the 0.7 per cent. target within their own lifetime and will then proceed to the 1 per cent. target, not because it is particularly charitable but because this is the future for Britain.
The future lies in an increase in the purchasing power of the half of the world's population who today cannot afford to buy British goods but who could be the market for the future—a market in co-operation, supplying our needs as well as our supplying theirs. I beg the Minister to address himself to these real problems. I support wholeheartedly the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that we should not just state these views among a handful of ourselves sitting in these Benches. We should state them on behalf of the House itself, and state them in such a way that we can call in expert witnesses and civil servants and report back to the House and thus face the major challenge of the future of the economic life of Britain during the rest of this century and into the following century.
9 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having made such a concise and thoughtful speech on this very important Question. We are very grateful to him for giving the Government an opportunity to reply to the Unstarred Question that he has put directly to them as to what steps they are going to take to stimulate non-oil visible exports.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, when he replies, will be able to list a number of measures that the Government have taken by way of aiding industry. Those measures, however inadequate many of us may consider them to be, may be impressive. But nothing that the Government can do
1040
while they remain confined within the ideological shackles imposed on them by the Prime Minister and her Treasury Ministers can possibly do anything substantial to deal with the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, supported by my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby.
The figures that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised are horrendous. They show the quite disastrous state into which British industry has been allowed to fall. It is perhaps unfortunate that when the figures are published, as they are month by month, the main section of the press is concerned only with the total balance of trade, including oil. The Government themselves show much jubilation when there is a surplus taking oil and non-oil visible trade together.
The public at large do not, I think, realise the perilous state into which the nation has been allowed to sink—a state in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, so succinctly pointed out, once the oil flow begins to slow down, in order to achieve the balance of trade necessary to sustain the basic needs of the entire population of this country there will need to be such a manufacturing effort as so far we have not seen. The Government show no consciousness of this. We have only to go back to the beginning of this Government's term of office to find out exactly why it has happened.
In the last four years the volume of exports from this country has declined by 15 per cent. Volume figures are much more reliable than the figures that have to be adjusted for inflation. Manufactured exports have declined in volume by 15 per cent. since this Government have been in office, and manufactured imports have, during the same time, increased in volume by 25 per cent. Why is that so? It is said by the Government that the main reason why there has been this decline is that British industry is not competitive compared with overseas countries. They sought to deal with that by giving vast taxation concessions in successive Budgets, on the grounds that taxation concessions, particularly as they affected those in the higher income groups, would inspire the leaders of industry to far greater effort and would produce increased prosperity in the country.
At the same time, in an act of what must now be known as supreme folly, they raised the interest rates in this country at one fell swoop by some 4 per cent., and they drove up the rate of exchange to a point where it was 2.42 dollars to the pound. The Prime Minister was euphoric about this, as any glance at her speeches will reveal. She said that at last the pound could look the dollar in the face. She could not have realised at that time what damage it was going to do to our exports from this country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has pointed out, one of the most substantial reasons for exports from this country being regarded as uncompetitive is the grossly inflated exchange rate, which subsided only very gradually from the level it reached in early 1980. It almost decimated the export effort. That is not to say that certain industries, and in particular certain companies, have not been able to survive. There are many reasons for that. The larger enterprises in this country, particularly the multi-national companies, are able because of their size to produce in very large batches.

1041
They are also able to produce in their subsidiaries overseas, where wage rates are very much lower, and, by a system of transfer pricing, they can in fact sustain a fairly high level of exports—one country, one subsidiary, sustaining another. Indeed, there are many instances in which the export efforts of the larger companies have been increasing over this period. But that is not true of the great bulk of British industry—the smaller firms and the medium-sized firms—save in those instances where the supply of capital goods of a highly specialised quality (for which this country has been renowned for a long time) succeeds in finding buyers without over-much regard for price. But those are very limited areas.
It has for a long time been held that successful manufacturing export from a country can in the long run best be sustained by a substantial domestic market. One of the characteristics of the grossly excessive value of the pound, which was deliberately set by the Government—there is no question of it being due to market forces, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, no doubt knows by now—not only makes it more difficult for exports to compete in the overseas market (and I am talking now of the small and the medium-sized firms producing the manufactures for export overseas) but at the same time subsidises imports into the country. So it works both ways.
The artificially high rate of exchange has enabled the other countries—particularly those in Europe—to compete on an exchange rate subsidy basis too successfully with British companies. Therefore, it has reduced the domestic manufacture of articles for domestic consumption and has progressively destroyed the domestic market basis that always lies at the root of a successful export effort. Until the Government realise that, there is no hope.
Perhaps I can address the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in terms with which he is a little more familiar than his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. The noble Lord will know that, when you get large batch production based on a large consumer demand, you in fact reduce unit costs. The finest way of reducing unit costs and, therefore, of making your price more competitive is to get longer runs, longer batches, because you get a greater overhead recovery. The noble Lord, as a distinguished accountant himself, knows that perfectly well. All these conditions have been debilitated by the Government's policies. In fact, they have been responsible—and they must realise it—for a massive decline in the manufacturing capacity of this country at competitive rates, not only because of the artificially high rate of exchange, but also because of the high interest rates which must, in themselves, ultimately enter into unit costs. Even today, interest rates in the United Kingdom are 40 per cent. higher than they are in Germany and 80 per cent. higher than they are in Japan, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well.
Against these dominant factors—the dominant factors in the way in which the Government have conducted, or rather not conducted, the economy—the other measures that are so very desirable and the measures that are being taken by the Government themselves, albeit grudgingly, are merely a drop in the ocean compared with the results that would have ensued had intelligent economic policies
1042
been followed and indeed—as my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby pointed out—had there been intelligent policies in regard to other overseas countries as well. This is the really massive contribution that they can make. If they wish, they can change the whole climate within which manufacturing industry operates at this time.
Some noble Lords have sometime advanced the views of the CBI in this House, but none of them is present this evening. But it is not true or sufficient to say that the actual taxation costs borne by our competitors in, for example, Europe, are lower than ours. In point of fact, the taxes based upon labour in this country are the lowest in Europe, and our actual wage rates in this country are towards the bottom end of the wage rates in Europe. Therefore, these things will not wash.
What is required—and in view of the continued pressure by the Government to achieve entirely irrelevant changes in the ownership of industry—is a programme of import substitution, bearing in mind the considerations also that have been raised by my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby. If private capital is not prepared to invest, there could be established by the Government themselves, by aid to firms or to managements that were prepared to undertake it, industries that could readily compete with industries abroad and could begin once again to turn us into the manufacturing nation that we always have been.
The danger is that we shall develop our communications industry so much that ultimately we shall be communicating with one another about material manufactures that we no longer manufacture ourselves at all. We shall talk to one another about material objects which we are no longer making ourselves in any event. That will not solve the problems of the nation. True enough, we want increased communications; true enough, we want to get the maximum export income we can from our new communications industries. We want all these things, but we must—and the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, are irrefutable in this—take steps quickly and urgently to revitalise the manufacturing section of our industry in the United Kingdom.
If it be the case that private capital will not invest in it but will still prefer to invest its money overseas for a quick profit where labour charges are, under different conditions, about 40 per cent. of what they are in the United Kingdom, then any Government of the day with the future of the country, as distinct from party, firmly in their mind must take constructive steps to ensure the re-establishment of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
It is tragic that, when it comes to questions affecting agriculture, the competitive mind of the Government goes into a lock. It becomes completely paralysed. It declines, and considers quite unimaginable that the same competitive laws that it tries to lay down for industry should in fact apply to agriculture. In fact, agriculture receives massive subsidies not only from the people in unnecessarily high prices but in the net contribution, amounting to over £1,000 million, which this country pays into the EEC for agricultural support. Why should not the Government pay the

1043
same attention, devote the same interest, and show the same undying affection for the manufacturing industries of our country as they do for agriculture, and as they do for finance?
The real answer of course is that there is no government so far as industry is concerned. The Government have abdicated from government so far as the future of British industry is concerned. They are content to leave it to the finance houses of the City. They are content to leave it to the institutions. Such care and such effort as they put into the promotion of British industry is, I am bound to say, the minimum they can put in—and I emphasise that—in fear of further and almost unendurable unemployment. They are just keeping industry quiet. They are not stimulating industry. If a truthful answer were given to the steps to be taken by the Government to stimulate British industry—and without the slightest offence to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who I am sure will put forward a number of interesting figures as to what the Government are doing—I am bound to say that the best way for the Government to stimulate British industry would be for them to resign.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we have had a fascinating and, indeed, stimulating debate this evening, worthy of the highest standards of your Lordships' House. It has been of great interest to your Lordships, and I am sure that it will be of great interest to those noble Lords who, for one reason or another, have been absent from the House. Those of your Lordships who sat through the long hours of last night and the night before possibly have not got the aggressiveness, youth and spring in the step of those who have spoken this evening. Nor, indeed, have they the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to whom we are so grateful for initiating the debate this evening and for asking the Unstarred Question, as well as for raising so many interesting points and new ideas, about which I shall have a little to say later in my remarks.
I shall attempt to restrict myself to answering the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. In commencing this task, your Lordships will not need me to tell you that there have been enormous changes in the pattern of world trade—and this is the nub of the Question which is being asked this evening—together with changes in the trade of the United Kingdom in the last decade. If we take two of the major factors in this period, we find not one but two great oil price increases in the early 1970s and in 1979–1980. The second thing we find is the membership of this country of the Common Market. As Lord Ezra and your Lordships, who are all experts in trade and industry and economics, will be aware, our exporters have had to adjust to the new circumstances; but we are proud to see that they have responded to that challenge.
Your Lordships will be interested to know—the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, tempted me by saying I would produce some figures, and I shall, but very few—the percentage of our exports going to the European Community markets during the last 10 years has risen from 31 per cent. to 42 per cent., while the percentage going to OPEC countries has risen from 7 per cent. to 12per cent. My point in producing these
1044
small examples is that Britain's exporters have responded to the changes in the past, and we are particularly optimistic that they will do so again in the future.
On the theme of change, I would point out that the Government are considering with great interest the report on trade patterns by the Select Committee on the European Communities. I have it in my hand. It is a very useful exercise; and the report is quite a heavy weight. I am sure that Lord Bruce will be thumbing through it, as will many other Members of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will be aware that this report will be debated in this House on 29th November. We are quite sure it will give rise to a particularly good debate. When we come to examine this report, we shall see that it looks into the change in trade patterns in the United Kingdom subsequent to our joining the EEC.
I promised that I would stick to the subject of the Unstarred Question in this evening's debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly pointed out that among the challenges that will be with us very soon will be that of adjusting to the run-down of North Sea oil revenues. Of course, the run-down will not happen overnight. We believe that Britain may well remain self-sufficient in oil right into the 1990s and indeed may remain a major producer beyond the year 2000. But there is a challenge and the Government are preparing for it by creating a climate which is favourable for industrial and commercial growth, and by encouraging efficiency, enterprise and innovation so that companies in the manufacturing and service sectors can compete profitably at home and abroad.
I include the services sector deliberately because the growth of this sector is a significant and very welcome development. Investment in the service industries is expected to be the highest ever this year, while service industry employment rose by nearly 150,000 in the first half of this year. I would stress that this is real growth, and the British economy is responding to the changing pattern of world demand by supplying the services that the world wants, including financial, professional, technical and consultancy services. The overseas earnings of United Kingdom consultants, for example, have risen nine times since 1972 to their present level of around one billion pounds.
The Government's support for profitable trading abroad is not limited to the creation of a favourable economic climate but includes a vigorous programme of tangible export assistance by the British Overseas Trade Board. The BOTB's services tend to be focused on smaller companies, on first-time exporters, and on companies tackling new export markets. They are providing the seed corn from which in the next decade we believe that a harvest of profitable long-term export business will be reaped. One important BOTB service is the provision of a very great deal of information to exporters about specific export opportunities reported by the United Kingdom's diplomatic posts overseas. A recent independent survey indicated that United Kingdom companies obtained £1 billion of export business a year as a result of leads obtained through this service.
Through the BOTB, and in particular through the activities and projects of the export policy division, the Government also provide support in a variety of ways

1045
to companies bidding for major projects overseas. Last year, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be aware, the division helped British firms to win major contracts worth £1.3 billion in United Kingdom content alone, four of which were valued at over £100 million. There are also many many other excellent examples of cases where the Aid and Trade Provision has enabled British companies to obtain major orders against foreign competition. In one recent case the willingness of the United Kingdom to use the provision to match another country's terms itself caused the competitor to decline from using mixed credit; and the United Kingdom bidder won the contract on straight commercial terms. And we should not forget the very considerable support provided for exporters by ECGD, which last year insured some £19 billion worth of exports and signed up more than £7 billion worth of long-term guarantees to banks, who will now provide finance for capital goods exports in the future.
I should like to pay a tribute to the work which has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. My knowledge of his work, until I began to brief myself for his Unstarred Question this evening, was limited to what I had heard and read in the media. I was not aware that he was a founder member of the BOTB when it was set up in 1972; and, as your Lordships will be aware, he served until July this year. The noble Lord was also chairman of the European Trade Committee, which was one of the BOTB's area advisory groups during this period. It is thanks to his efforts that the BOTB has been so successful, and why it is so appropriate that he should ask this very important Question this evening. The noble Lord was also very closely involved, during his chairmanship of a very great nationalised industry, in what we call positive purchasing activities, whereby leading United Kingdom purchasers are urged to build up more effective links with their United Kingdom suppliers. We believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has done tremendous work in this field.
I shall now continue attempting to answer the important points that he has raised. I mentioned that the Government are seeking to create a favourable climate for industrial growth. This includes continued restraint on public expenditure, in order to make further advances in the successful fight against inflation. The BOTB has contributed to Government targets in this area by reducing its manpower. But its services have remained intact, and, indeed, in some cases their take-up by exporters has increased significantly. BOTB productivity has been substantially improved. We believe—
Lord Ezra: My Lords, may I—
Lord Lyell: My Lords, may I just finish this paragraph? It is the exporters who, in the end, do the exporting. But we are firmly of the opinion that the BOTB is putting its resources to good use and helping to ensure that Britain has, and will continue to have, a strong base of manufacturers providing employment at home and competing successfully in overseas markets. I yield briefly to the noble Lord.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is a very brief question. I should just like to ask whether the Government are
1046
contemplating any further reductions in the manpower of the BOTB.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall be as brief and as accurate as I can and say, not so far as I am aware. That is all I have. If I am in any way in error, we can certainly discuss this. If I am in gross error, I will write swiftly to the noble Lord, and I hope more swiftly than I have done in the past week. I shall certainly take that point.
I have concentrated my remarks on the BOTB but, of course, there are many other Government activities with the same objective. I mention briefly just two. The first is the national quality campaign, where the Government's contribution includes financial help to companies to review and strengthen their approach to quality management. It also includes a wide range of initiatives to enhance the market status of the supporting national standards system.
The second Government activity with the same objective as the BOTB is the Government's support for initiatives to help establish competitive British sources of supply. We believe that this is particularly dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and, indeed, to the heart of British industrialists. The Government are themselves active in promoting the best purchasing practices in the public sector, in order to assist positively the development of industrial competitiveness. The Government are doing this through their major public purchasing policy initiative, of which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is well aware, as we all are; and he was one of its strongest supporters.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, commenced asking his Question by paying tribute to the earners of invisibles overseas. We wish to add our tributes to those of the noble Lord. The noble Lord also mentioned, in passing—I shall study what he said in the Official Report tomorrow—food and beverages. As a Scot, I am particularly grateful for his mention of the very valuable export market for the liquid which is so dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and many of us.
The noble Lord referred to some of the remarks made by me and other Members of your Lordships' House during the course of the Starred Question which was asked a week ago. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, to consult col. 629, where they will find that I made it fairly clear that we understood that the two years when Britain was in deficit on manufactures were putative. I stressed that the two years were theoretical—no more than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, presented four measures which he believed needed to be taken. He mentioned investment in the installation of new machinery. We believe that industry is attempting to do this itself, and the Government wish to give industry every encouragement they can.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and also, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned the exchange rate problem. As your Lordships will be aware, the exchange rate and its influence on the balance of trade is very important, but the policy of the United Kingdom is that, no matter what may be the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington,

1047
the exchange rate should be determined by market forces. Both the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I are on the same side of the fence when it comes to examining figures. At least, I hope we are.
I would stress to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and to your Lordships that the Government have only limited scope to influence the exchange rate, apart from what one might call short-term smoothing operations. Such a term does not endear itself to the hearts of accountants, notably the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I would stress again to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that any devaluation that was achieved through any fiscal or monetary laxity might provide a short-term benefit to exporters but, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, in the long run it would feed through into such things as higher costs by way of higher import prices and wage demands.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government's main belief is that lasting improvements in the competitiveness of the United Kingdom depend, above all, upon continued moderation in such things as wage settlements and upon continued improvements in both productivity and aspects of non-price competitiveness in areas such as design, punctuality of delivery and product reliability, besides other factors which are also germane to exporting.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also raised the very interesting point, which is so close to his heart, of import substitution. This is particularly relevant to all that he did relating to his public purchasing policy. For the last three and a half years this Government have been vigorously pursuing a major policy initiative which is aimed at encouraging the public sector to use its huge purchasing power in a positive manner to help develop and maintain suppliers' competitiveness. There are many facets to this initiative, including the development of a long-term dialogue between customers and suppliers, besides the encouragement and use of the appropriate standard of specification and the adoption of a value for money criterion which takes into account all sorts of factors, both long and short term. We are happy to report that some progress has been made, but your Lordships will be aware that much still remains to he done.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra—this was one of the major points of his Question—wondered about the possibility of setting up a Select Committee of your Lordships' House on overseas trade to consider the matters which we have been debating this evening. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and those noble Lords who have thought about this matter will be aware, this proposal will have to be discussed by my noble friend the Leader of the House through the usual channels.
I would explain to your Lordships that such a committee could be a fairly major undertaking. My noble friend the Leader of the House would have to take into account the effect it would have on the staff resources of your Lordships' House, bearing in mind the needs of all the existing committees of your Lordships' House, including the committee which has only recently been set up to consider the two charity Bills. But I know that my noble friend the Leader of
1048
the House is sympathetic to this proposal and I will undertake that he will give it careful consideration. We are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for letting my noble friend know that the noble Lord would be raising this matter this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, raised many interesting points. It is my opinion that many of his points, interesting though they were, were more than a little wide of the strict terms of the Question being asked tonight. Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer several of them. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, raised the question of textiles; and also raised in aid the question of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. He was not entirely satisfied with it; perhaps nobody is entirely satisfied with it, but I would stress—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would agree with me—that in the United Kingdom we have, and will continue to have, a healthy and vigorous textile industry. Any alterations to the pattern of our trade in textiles can only continue to be made under the aegis of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, wondered whether we could boost our imports. Whether he was thinking of purely substituting imports or increasing them, I am not entirely aware, but if he was thinking of substantially increasing them, then I wonder whether he will consider that such action might aggravate the problem that is at the root of the Question being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, tonight.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has totally misunderstood the point I was arguing. I was not arguing for increased imports; I was simply pointing out that the major competition for British textiles comes from the developed countries where British capital is being increasingly invested—not from the developing countries, which are being prevented from developing their manufacturing industry on the foundation of textiles.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord raised that point as well, about exports and trade with the developing countries. But I would stress again that in respect of any alteration in our pattern of trade in this especially sensitive area for the British textile industry we believe that the Multi-Fibre Arrangement is the best vehicle.
The noble Lord did a very useful advertising job for a telephone firm in Cambridge, and I am sure that particular firm will be pleased to know of the noble Lord's vigorous support, and might even read of it, for their tremendous efforts. I regret I must be the only spokesman from this position who has not had the pleasure of answering Lord Hatch of Lusby on overseas aid. He mentioned that he had heard from a variety of spokesmen from the Government and that none of them had satisfied him; I will only tell him that he can always wait and hope. The noble Lord also took us on a tour of southern Africa and he mentioned President Sékou Touré of Guinea. I am not able to follow him down that avenue—we can perhaps wait for another day.
As to copper prices and commodity prices, so vital to Zambia, I am afraid I have to say again that we cannot dicuss them at length tonight. The noble Lord

1049
will have opportunities to raise this in the future. The noble Lord, I thought, had one or two barbs for the Export Credits Guarantee Department. It may be his opinion that it does not do a particularly firm job, but we believe that certainly the ECGD is in no way out of date. The noble Lord and your Lordships will remember from various discussions we have had on this subject that the ECGD is not a bottomless pit of financial support. It is, indeed, supported by the exporting firms themselves.
I enjoyed Lord Hatch's fascinating prophesy of what a putative Labour Government would do, and of their share of national output and aid. That will go down with many other fascinating prophecies, and we shall be able to look at it in the very distant future to see the accuracy of the noble Lord's prophecy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in his warm-hearted and traditionally robust way, made a number of telling points. I enjoyed his emotive language, such as the shackles placed on all our activities by the Treasury. The noble Lord, of all people in your Lordships' House, as a particularly distinguished practising accountant, should know the vital nature of financial activities in the affairs of the Treasury; indeed, in the subject we are discussing tonight. The noble Lord was quite harsh, I thought, about what he called monetary policies, but some noble Lords might just cast their minds back to the autumn of 1976 and the policies which were followed by the noble Lord's Government subsequent to that date.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and, indeed, other noble Lords, raised the question of sterling becoming a petro-currency. As the noble Lord will be aware, the price of oil nearly doubled between 1979 and 1980, and with the effect of the petro-currency factor on our exchange rate the combination was a major burden for our exporting industries to bear. But we salute them, and we support them in what they have done in overcoming this.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, he will be aware that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which examined this question came to the conclusion, which has not been refuted, that it was not the rise in oil prices that had the effect on the rate of exchange but the interest rates. If the noble Lord refers to the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Unemployment, he will find that very clearly set out.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wondered which Select Committee it was. I have not yet had an opportunity of going through this, but the noble Lord and I might go through it together; it might be quite instructive. The noble Lord says that the doubling in the oil price was not a factor in our problems as far as exporting was concerned, and he mentioned interest rates. That may be his opinion, but I think he will find plenty of other opinions, valid opinions, in your Lordships' House which believe that the one was a factor in the other.
The noble Lord referred to my noble friend Lord Cockfield mentioning what were described, I think, as batch runs. The noble Lord will know that my noble friend was, and still is, able to speak about such things, since in his previous incarnation he was managing
1050
director of a particularly large firm in a very considerable way of business in the United Kingdom economy. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also paid me a very kind encomium. I would stress to him that I am not a distinguished accountant yet; I am an humble Member of your Lordships' House, and certainly tonight I have the honour to sit on this Bench.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised one point which I can answer tonight. He asked about the reduction in our manufactured export volume by 15 per cent. since this Government came into office. The noble Lord will know, and statisticians in your Lordships' House will know, that, depending upon the numbers you choose, any of us can produce a figure like this. But, of course—as the noble Lord and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be aware—these figures mainly reflect the world recession. One point that we believe bears repeating over and over again is that last year the volume of United Kingdom manufacturing exports rose slightly—I think by 1 per cent.—while world trade volume fell by 2 per cent. We believe, in view of all these tremendous problems that we have discussed this evening, that that is a magnificent achievement and the Government wish to continue paying our tribute to the manufacturing industry for obtaining such excellent figures.
I have spoken about what the Government are doing, but let us not forget the achievements of industry. The productivity performance of our manufacturers has improved significantly since 1979. In the three months to August this year it was 7 per cent. higher than in the same period last year—that is, 1982. The reports which we hear suggest that our exporters are putting up a far better performance these days on such aspects as delivery and reliability. So I am not pessimistic about the present. I stress that the nation is not importing manufactured goods that it cannot afford. I believe that that is absolutely vital. I stress that there are tremendous opportunities in the consultancy and service industries. We believe that the growth in these industries really does show that we may be importing but we certainly can afford it, at least at present. I am ever optimistic that in the future we in this country can adjust our trading pattern as successfully as we have always done in the past.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS: COST OF REINTRODUCTION
  DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS: COST OF REINTRODUCTION
  CRAYFISH FARMING PROJECTS
  CRAYFISH FARMING PROJECTS
  CRAYFISH DISEASE
  CRAYFISH DISEASE
  EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD
  EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD
  GENERATORS FOR WELDING AND POWER SUPPLIES: EC DIRECTIVE
  GENERATORS FOR WELDING AND POWER SUPPLIES: EC DIRECTIVE
  DETENTION CENTRE AND YOUTH CUSTODY ORDERS
  DETENTION CENTRE AND YOUTH CUSTODY ORDERS
  MR. FRANK McCLURE: INQUEST
  MR. FRANK McCLURE: INQUEST
  CABLE TELEVISION PILOT PROJECTS
  CABLE TELEVISION PILOT PROJECTS